Petitioner challenged SARFAESI Act enforcement steps. Court had intercepted coercive measures upon payment of deposits. Petitioner failed to satisfy the deposit condition. Interference was declined and writ petition dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932
WP(C).No. 5721 of 2010(M)
----------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------------------
SHIBU JOHN, S/O.ULAHANNAN JOHN, AGED 45 YEARS, MAMPRAYIL HOUSE, VATTAKUNNU P.O, PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. MR.T.K.SHAJAHAN
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------------------
1. DENA BANK, KOTTAYAM BRANCH,280 D, GOOD SHEPARD STREET, KOTTAYAM 686 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER UNDER THE SARFESI ACT, DENA BANK, KOTTAYAM BRANCH, 280D, GOOD SHEPARD STREET, KOTTAYAM 686 001.
R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.C.AJITH KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C).No.5721 of 2010
Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Being aggrieved of the steps taken by the respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner has approached this Court, seeking for immediate interference. Taking note of the submissions from the part of the petitioner, the coercive steps were intercepted on 22.2.2010, on condition that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/-, within one week and another Rs.50,000/- within one week thereafter.
W.P.(C).No.5721 of 2010
2
However, the fact remains that the petitioner has not chosen to satisfy the condition imposed by this Court.
Accordingly, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed, however, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner as available under the statute concerned.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE
nl
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India given the petitioner's failure to comply with the imposed deposit condition.
Shibu John
Dena Bank, Kottayam Branch
P.R. Ramachandran Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
