Kerala High Court
WP(C)/38108/2008 of MUHAMMED ALI Vs AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVAN 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 W.P(C).No. 38108 of 2008(J) ------------------------------------ SA.223/2008 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .......................... PETITIONER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DECEMBER 2008 / 5TH POUSHA 1930
W.P(C).No. 38108 of 2008(J)
------------------------------------
SA.223/2008 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
..........................
PETITIONER :
---------------------
MUHAMMED ALI, S/O.LATE HASSAN,
ILLICKAL HOUSE, PATHADIPALAM,
CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-33.
BY ADV. SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL)
RESPONDENTS :
-------------------------
1. AUTHORISED OFFICER,
(CHIEF MANAGER (SARC ARMB EKM)
STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, SBT BHAVAN,
PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM -36.
2. MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,
EDAPPALLY BRANCH, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI.
BY SRI. K.S. DILIP,SC, SBT
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. 38108 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
The impugned Exhibit P3 is an interim order passed by theD.R.T. in securitisation application under Section 17 of theSARFAESI Act. I do not find any jurisdictional error or legal infirmityin that order. This writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to theright of the petitioner to prosecute any application, which is stated tobe pending before the tribunal seeking enlargement of time.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
scm