None appeared. The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the validity of Sections of SARBEEA 2002 and RBI Guidelines by relying on a prior Division Bench decision in Deccan Chronicles Holdings.
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 JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.01.2015
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL W.P. Nos. 27601 and 27602 of 2014 and M.P. No.1 of 2014
M/s. Kavai Processors (P) Ltd. Represented by its Managing Director Sri P. Uma Shankar SF.No.145/1A, Near Amman Koil, Parapalayam, Mannarai Post Tiruppur District. Petitioner in both the WPs vs. 1 Union of India represented by its Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance Department of Economic Affairs Room No.34-C New Delhi 110 001. 2 Reserve Bank of India represented by its Chairman and Managing Director 6 Parliament Street New Delhi 110 001 3 The Authorised Officer State Bank of Hydrabad, Thousand Lights Branch, No.37 B, 1st Floor, Whites Road, Chennai. Respondents in both the WPs Prayer in W.P. No.27601 of 2014:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of declaration declaring the provisions of Section 2(1)(o) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Act, 2002, as arbitrary, unconstitutional and opposed to public policy, null and void and the same being ultra vires the Constitution of India.
Prayer in W.P. No.27602 of 2014:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of declaration declaring the Guidelines No.DBOD.No.BP.BC.9/21.04.048/2012-13 issued by the Reserve Bank of India dated 02.07.2012 relating to the classification of accounts as a non performing asset as arbitrary, unconstitutional and opposed to public policy.
The matter is called twice. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner even in the second call. We have perused the documents. The question involved in these writ petitions, viz., the validity and constitutionality of Section 2(1)(o) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, came up for consideration in a batch of writ petitions. A Division Bench of this Court, in Deccan Chronicles Holdings Ltd. and others vs. Union of India, represented by its Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, New Delhi- 110 011 and others1 , upheld the constitutional validity of the said provision and dismissed the said batch of writ petitions.
To
1 The Joint Secretary,
Union of India
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Economic Affairs,
Room No.34-C
New Delhi 110 001.
2 Reserve Bank of India
represented by its Chairman
and Managing Director
6 Parliament Street
New Delhi 110 001
3 The Authorised Officer
State Bank of Hydrabad,
Thousand Lights Branch,
No.37 B, 1 st Floor,
Whites Road, Chennai.
2 ccs to Mr.S. Pandurangan, Advocate, Sr. 2357, 2356
W.P. Nos. 27601 and 27602 of 2014
BR (CO)
kk 3/2
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Deccan Chronicles Holdings Ltd. and others vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶10
Deccan Chronicles Holdings Ltd. and others vs. Union of India
M/s. Kavai Processors (P) Ltd.
Union of India
Satish K. Agnihotri
M. Venugopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
