The Nagpur Bench disposed of a writ petition challenging a bank's action under Section 13 of the Securitisation Act. The court held that the delayed challenge, unaccompanied by amendments regarding subsequent developments, rendered the petition infructuous.
Writ petition dismissed; rule discharged; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Order
2704wp536.05
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 536/2005.
Smt. Neeta Arvind Sawankar
The Chairman, Parmatama Ek Sevak Coop. Bank and another.
Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 27, 2016.
None for the parties.
issued under Section 13[2] of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and further action under Section 13[4] thereof. This Court while issuing notice before admission in the matter on 14.02.2005, directed the petitioner to file an undertaking that he would deposit all expenses and costs of the process by
Order
2704wp536.05
2
Bank for auction sale of property, if petition was to be dismissed.
Order
2704wp536.05
3
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the challenge to Section 13(4) action under the Securitisation Act has become infructuous due to the passage of time.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Neeta Arvind Sawankar
The Chairman, Parmatama Ek Sevak Coop. Bank
Another
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
P.N. DESHMUKH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
