Disposed

Sundaram Finance Limited v. the Authorised Officer

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2024WP/685/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court directed the respondent to consider a pending representation from the petitioner within one month, without expressing an opinion on the petition's maintainability.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to consider the representation dated 28.10.2023 and take appropriate decision within one month.

Sundaram Finance Limited Vs the Authorised Officer — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:24857 WP No. 685 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.685 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1913 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.21, PATULLOS ROAD, CHENNAI, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER - LEGAL, MR. B.C. RENUKA PRASAD

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. AVINASH B C, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER M/S. SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED, NO.383/226, SHRI K.G. VINJYA COMPLEX, SVT ROAD, CHICKAMAUGA, KOPPA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 126.

¶12

Digitally signed by Vandana S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M J ALVA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.10.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-F.

¶15

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ‘PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP’ , THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:24857 WP No. 685 of 2024

¶18

ORDER

¶19

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶20

“(i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the representation dated 28.10.2023 vide Annexure-F.

¶21

(ii) Pass such other order or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the representation dated 28.10.2023 submitted by the petitioner has not been considered by the respondent, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶24

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the present petition is not maintainable as against private respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Alternatively, it is submitted that in the event if reasonable time is granted, respondents shall consider the representation and proceed, in accordance with law.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and undisputed fact that the representation dated 28.10.2023 submitted

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:24857 WP No. 685 of 2024

¶28

by the petitioner has not been considered by the respondents even till today, without expressing any opinion on the question as to maintainability of the petition, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 28.10.2023 submitted by the petitioner and take appropriate decision / pass appropriate orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶29

Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions,

¶30

the petition stands disposed of. It is made clear that the present order shall not be treated as a precedent nor shall the same be of any precedential value for any purpose whatsoever.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

¶33

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 84

Sundaram Finance Limited v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sundaram Finance Limited v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Karan Ramsisaria Vs Uco Bank Ltd.

Smt Chikkamma Vs State of Karnataka Under Secretary

Rahim Industries by Its Partners Vs the Branch Manager

Sri Atikoor Rahaman Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. H. S. Sharavathi Vs M/S. Canara Bank

Smt Uma L Raju Vs M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.