Kerala High Court
WP(C)/38105/2008 of SAJI YOHANNAN Vs THE AUTHORISED OFFICER on 26 December 2008
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH DECEMBER 2008 / 5TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 38105 of 2008(J) ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 1829/08 IN SA.102/2008 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DECEMBER 2008 / 5TH POUSHA 1930
WP(C).No. 38105 of 2008(J)
-----------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 1829/08 IN SA.102/2008 OF DEBT RECOVERY
TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .
....................
PETITIONER :
---------------------
SAJI YOHANNAN , S/O.G.YOHANNAN,
PROPRIETOR, M/S.SHEEBA PAINTS,
HOSPITAL JUNCION, KUNDARA.
BY ADV. SRI.R.ARUN (PALLURUTHY)
RESPONDENTS :
------------------------
1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER,
FEDERAL BANK LTD., KUNDARA BRANCH,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.
2. THE CHIEF MANAGER,
FEDERAL BANK LTD., KUNDARA BRANCH,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 26/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------------------- W.P(C). No. 38105 of 2008
------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26[th] day of December, 2008
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Under challenge is aninterim order passed by the D.R.T. in an appeal under Section 17 ofthe SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal has ordered that the entire amountcovered by the notice to be deposited before the date fixed for sale andpost the case on 30/12/2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner isunable to state whether the petitioner or his wife earlier has obtainedjudgment of this Court also touching the SARFAESI Act proceedings.Whatever that be, the impugned order does not warrant anyinterference in exercise of authority under Article 226 of theConstitution of India. This writ petition is dismissed without prejudiceto the Tribunal dealing with its own order which is impugned herein asit may be just and reasonable under any circumstances.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE