Dismissed

Mary Santha Stephen v. General Manager, State Bank of India

Kerala HC25 Mar 2024WP(C)/23262/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On 25.03.2024, the Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition filed in 2018 challenging actions by an Asset Reconstruction Company. Finding the petition infirmuous due to no interim orders and the assignment of the facility to the 3rd respondent, the court closed it.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is closed as infructuous with liberty to approach appropriate authority if further action is taken.

Mary Santha Stephen Vs General Manager, State Bank of… — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 23262 OF 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MARY SANTHA STEPHEN,

¶8

AGED 70 YEARS, W/O. STEPHEN, RESIDING AT 47/367B, PAYYAPPILLY HOUSE, ANGLO INDIAN SCHOOL CROSS ROAD, VADUTHALA,ERNAKULAM-682 023.

¶9

BY ADVS.V.A.VINOD

¶10

N.S.AJAY

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, 2ND FLOOR, R.S. BUILDING, M.G. ROAD,ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 011.

¶13

2 STATE BANK OF INDIA,

¶14

M.G. ROAD BRANCH, ERNAKULAM REPRESENT BY ITS MANAGER

¶15

3 AUTHORISED OFFICER, M/S. ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY(INDIA) LIMITED(ARCIL), THE RUBY, 10TH FLOOR, 29, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, DADAR(W), MUMBAI 400 028.

¶16

R1&R2 SRI.JITHESH MENON,STANDING COUNSEL, STATE BANK OF INDIA

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C) No.23262 of 2018

¶19

-:2:-

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Dated this the 25^th day of March, 2024

¶22

When the matter is taken up for consideration today, none appears for the petitioner.

¶23

The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submits that his client has already assigned the credit facility to the 3^rd respondent – Asset Reconstruction Company.

¶24

The petitioner in the present writ petition impugns an action taken by the 3^rd respondent under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. This writ petition is filed in the year 2018 and there is no interim order granted by this Court.

¶25

In the above circumstances, the writ petition is closed as infructuous, giving liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies, if and when further action is taken by the 3^rd respondent in accordance with the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act.

¶26

Sd/- EASWARAN S. JUDGE

¶27

bpr

¶28

W.P.(C) No.23262 of 2018

¶29

-:3:-

¶30

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23262/2018

¶31

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶32

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE PHOTOSTAT NOTICE ISSUED BY DATED 6.10.2016	COPY OF THE POSSESSION THE THIRD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE PHOTOSTAT ASSIGNMENT DATED THE SECOND RESPON	COPY OF THE NOTICE OF 18.7.2014 ISSUED BY DENT
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE PHOTOSTAT	COPY OF THE PHYSICAL
	POSSESSION NOTI COMMISSIONER IN 12.6.2018	CE ISSUED BY THE MC 54/2018 DATED

Mary Santha Stephen v. General Manager, State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mary Santha Stephen v. General Manager, State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Annamma Thomas Vs the State of Kerala Represented by the District Collector

Ocean Polymers Vs the Principal Secretary to Government

Sajeena Vs the Kollam District Co-Operative Bank

Salim Mathew Vs the Authorized Officer