Dismissed

Joe I Mangaly v. the Union of India

Kerala HC19 Feb 2009WP(C)/4710/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed W. P. (C) No. 4710 as premature, holding that the petitioner could file objections under the 2002 Act before the Section 13(4) order. Consequently, the interim order regarding payment was rendered non-survivable, leading to the disposal of the review petition.

What did the court decide?

Withdrawal of interim order; dismissal of writ petition; disposal of review petition.

Joe I Mangaly Vs the Union of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 30TH MAGHA 1930

¶4

WP(C).No. 4710 of 2009(I) -------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶6

JOE I MANGALY, RED HILLS ESTATE, KALLEKULANGARA.P.O, PALAKKAD - 678 009 (KERALA) BY ADV. SRI.P.J.MATHEW SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR

¶7

RESPONDENT(S):

¶8

¶9

THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND DEPARTMENT OF BANKING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI.

¶10

M/S. SUNDARAM BNP PARIBAS HOME FINANCE LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, SUNDARAM TOWERS, 46, WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 014, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER.

¶11

THE NATIONAL HOUSING BANK, CORE 5 - 3RD FLOOR, INDIAN HABITAT CENTRE, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 003.

¶12

ADV. SRI. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN HEARD ON 19/02/2009, A/W. R.P.NO.201/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

S. Siri Jagan, J.

¶15

R.P. No. 201 of 2009 &

¶16

W. P (C) No. 4710 of 2009

¶17

Dated this, the 19^th February, 2009.

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

The writ petition was filed challenging a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 . Although, I was not inclined to admit the writ petition, since the petitioner submitted that he is prepared to pay the amounts due within two months, I passed an interim order to the effect that the petitioner shall pay the amount demanded in Ext. P7 in two equal monthly instalments payable on 163-2009 and 16-4-2009. Now the petitioner wants to review that order. In the above circumstances, I have heard the writ petition in so far as the petitioner does not want the interim order.

¶20

Ext. P7 is only a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. The petitioner can file objections to the same. In fact, the petitioner submits that he has filed objections. That being so, without passing an order under Section 13(4), the respondents cannot proceed further in the matter. In fact, against Section 13(4) order, the petitioner has a remedy by way of appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Therefore, this writ petition is premature and it is dismissed as such.

¶21

Since the writ petition itself has been dismissed, the interim order does not survive. Therefore, it is not necessary to pass separate orders in the review petition seeking review of the interim order. Accordingly, the review petition is disposed of.

¶22

S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

¶23

Tds/

Joe I Mangaly v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joe I Mangaly v. the Union of India

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

V.K.Rajalakshmi Vs Sreekala, the Environmental Engineer

M/S.Abad Builders (P) Ltd. Vs Salma Beevi

K.S.Gopalakrishna Pillai Vs Director of Municipal Admn.

M/S.Mini Muthoottu Mutual Funds Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Incometax

N.C.Gangadharan Vs State of Kerala

Muvattupuzha Municipality Vs Reliance Hyper Market Ltd.