Surialekha P v. Union Bank of India
Case brief
What is this about?
This High Court held that a notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act does not create a cause of action for a writ challenge before this court or a Debt Recovery Tribunal. The writ petition was closed.
What did the court decide?
The writ petition shall stand closed reserving liberty to file a proper petition challenging steps initiated pursuant to Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 23RD POUSHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 560 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
SURIALEKHA P AGED 51 YEARS W/O GOKUL GOVIND, PROPRIETRIX, M/S COMPU NEEDS COMMUNICATIONS, D-0, PERIYAR, TECHNOPARK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695581.
BY ADVS. V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN GIRISH KUMAR V.C
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, TRIVANDRUM MAIN BRANCH, P B NO.307, M G ROAD, STATUE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER UNION BANK OF INDIA, UNION BANK BUILDING, P BOX NO.307, M G ROAD, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001.
OTHER PRESENT:
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act gives rise to a cause of action for a writ challenge.
Whether the writ petition challenging the demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act should be allowed or dismissed.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
SURIALEKHA P AGED 51 YEARS W/O GOKUL GOVIND
- respondent
UNION BANK OF INDIA
Coram
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court