Petitioner challenged a possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SRS Act due to absence of Section 13(2) notice. Court permitted withdrawal with liberty to approach DRT, dismissing the petitioner accordingly.
Writ petition dismissed per withdrawal of petitioner with liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
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 NOUSHAD ALI
WRIT PETITION No.5746 of 2012
Dated:09.03.2012
Between:
K.Sahaja Rao.
Petitioner
And State Bank of India, And another.
... Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI
WRIT PETITION No.5746 of 2012
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)
The possession notice issued under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Act), is assailed by the petitioner on the ground that it was not preceded by a notice of demand under Section 13(2) of the Act.
After making submissions for some time, Counsel for the petitioner, seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17(1) of the Act.
Giving liberty to do so, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J)
___________________ (NOUSHAD ALI, J)
09.03.2012 vs
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SRS Act was valid in the absence of a prior notice of demand under Section 13(2) of the Act.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
K.Sahaja Rao
State Bank of India
V.V.S. Rao
Noushad Ali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
