✦ Kerala High Court

SAKUNTHALA .S v. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER

W.P.(C) No. 3508 of 2024N NAGARESH4 min read

Case at a glance

Bench
N NAGARESH

Provisions considered

Read the judgmentFind similar cases

Judgment

any. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 01.03.2024. (ii) If the petitioner commits default in making payments as directed above, the respondents will be at liberty to continue with coercive proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law. (iii) If the petitioner makes payments as directed above, coercive proceedings, if any, against the petitioner shall stand deferred. JUDGE Sd/- N. NAGARESH W.P.(C) No.3508 of 2024 :7: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3508/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY SANGEETHA R.V ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN MCNO 48/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDICAL COURT THIRUVANTHAPURAM MAGISTRATE THE TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED BY THE D .R. REVATHI . S.KUMAR ANATHAPURI HOSIPTIAL AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE THIRUVANTHAPURAM DATED ON 15.01.2024

Find similar cases Start drafting free

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Related cases why they’re linked — not procedural history

  • BY AD v. K.B.ARUNKUMAR

    Kerala High Court

    Same Act: Bank had no other go than to proceed against the petitioner invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 · Similar bench composition

  • MUHAMMED NASEEM C.K v. M/S. INDUSIND BANK LIMITED

    Kerala High Court

    Same Act: Bank had no other go than to proceed against the petitioner invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 · Same Act: Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002

  • SHAFNA SHAMSU REHMAN v. THE AUTHRIZED OFFICER

    Kerala High Court

    Same Act: Bank had no other go than to proceed against the petitioner invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 · Same Act: Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002

  • SYAMALA S v. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER

    Kerala High Court

    Same Act: Bank had no other go than to proceed against the petitioner invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002

  • SUHRABI v. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER

    Kerala High Court

    Same Act: Bank had no other go than to proceed against the petitioner invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002

  • KUMARI SHEELA v. UNION BANK OF INDIA

    Kerala High Court

    Same Act: Bank had no other go than to proceed against the petitioner invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002

Why is this linked?

More cases under Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002

Search all cases citing this act →

Continue researching

Connect this judgment to its cited authorities, statutes, and related legal questions.

Follow cited cases Browse research topics Explore statutes & sections
This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Kerala High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. W.P.(C) No. 3508 of 2024). ← Search more judgments