SUJITH K v. THE BRANCH MANAGER
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
In the circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. After getting the interim order, the petitioner has not taken out process for sending notice to the respondents. The petitioner has failed to take out process inspite of lapse of more than 3 months. W.P.(C) No. 6398 of 2024 : 3 : In the…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 6398 OF 2024 PETITIONER: SUJITH K AGED 44 YEARS S/O.BALAN, NIL THIMIRI VILLAGE, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR,, PIN – 670 581. BY ADV SHIBU JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: 1 2 THE BRANCH MANAGER ICICI HOME FINANCE COMPANY LTD, SHOP NO. 34/514, 1ST FLOOR, CHOLLAMPATTU BUILDING, EDAPPALLY TOLL JUNCTION, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682 024. AUTHORISED OFFICER ICICI HOME FINANCE COMPANY LTD, SHOP NO. 34/514, 1ST FLOOR, CHOLLAMPATTU BUILDING, EDAPPALLY TOLL JUNCTION, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682 024. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No. 6398 of 2024 : 2 : JUDGMENT Dated this the 28th day of May, 2024 The petitioner approached this Court seeking to quash Exhibits P1 and P2 notices issued by the ICICI Home Finance Company Limited, invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and to direct the respondents to regularize the loan account and to permit the petitioner to remit the outstanding amount required for such regularisation, in 14 equal monthly installments.
When this writ petition came up for admission, this Court issued urgent notice on admission to the respondents and an interim order was granted staying further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 on condition that the petitioner remits an amount of ₹ 3 lakhs within one month.
Operative part
After getting the interim order, the petitioner has not taken out process for sending notice to the respondents. The petitioner has failed to take out process inspite of lapse of more than 3 months. W.P.(C) No. 6398 of 2024 : 3 : In the circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE AJ W.P.(C) No. 6398 of 2024 : 4 : APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6398/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 12-5-2023. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 31-1- 2024 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
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.