The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the SRF Act. Relying on Mardia Chemicals, the court upheld the Act's validity. The petitioner was informed that post-possession action could be challenged in the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Writ petition dismissed; connected W.P.M.Ps also 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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.22099 of 2003
Dated:03.02.2012
Between:
Prakash Sadre.
Petitioner
And
The Chief Manager, State Bank of Hyderbad, Nallakunta, Hyderabad, And another.
... Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.22099 of 2003
ORDER OF THE COURT
The writ petition is filed challenging the validity of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Act) especially Section 13 of the Act, and for declaration that the same is unconstitutional. He also challenges the notice issued by the first respondent under Section 13(2) of the Act as illegal.
The petitioner, who is the proprietor of M/s.Prakash Traders a small scale industry engaged in the manufacture of Broom Sticks, availed credit facility of Rs.2.00 lakhs from the first respondent bank. As there was a default in payment of the loan instalments, the first respondent issued a notice of demand under Section 13(2) of the Act, calling upon the petitioner to pay the outstanding amount within a period of sixty days, failing which, the petitioner was informed that necessary action would be taken under Section 13(4) of the Act.
The question of constitutional validity of the Act is no more res integra. In Mardia Chemicals Ltd v Union of India[1] the Supreme Court upheld the Act, except Section 17(2) of the Act which was declared ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In view of the binding precedent, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. We, however, observe that if any action is taken
after issue of possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, it shall be open to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act.
The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Accordingly, all the W.P.M.Ps shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J)
________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)
03.02.2012 vs
[1] (2004) 4 SCC 311 : AIR 2004 SC 2371
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is unconstitutional?
Whether the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act is invalid?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mardia Chemicals Ltd v Union of IndiaRelied on¶15
(2004) 4 SCC 311 : AIR 2004 SC 2371 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Prakash Sadre
The Chief Manager, State Bank of Hyderbad, Nallakunta, Hyderabad
And another
V.V.S.RAO
G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
