Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ, J, SHAJI P.CHALY, J
M/S. KERALA FASHION JEWELLERY, D.NO.PP/VI, 656, MANJERY ROAD, PANDIKKAD, MALAPPURAM-676 521 – Appellant
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the restrictions on appointing presiding officers outside state jurisdiction must adhere to the recovery of debts and bankruptcy act. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. authority and power vested in the central government for tribunal appointments must comply with statutory definitions. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. statutory provisions thwart overreach in tribunal appointments, ensuring accessibility for litigants within their jurisdiction. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2021
S. Manikumar, CJ
Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 5.2.2021 in W.P.(C) No.2966 of 2021, instant writ appeal is filed.
2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are petitioners are the applicants in S.A. No.372 of 2018 on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam, filed under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 , challenging the physical possession measures taken by the 4th respondent-M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Mumbai, represented by its Managing Partner. The petitioners are aggrieved by the additional charge given by the Union of India, 1st respondent, to the 3rd respondent, the Presiding Officer of Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Bangalore, as t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
