SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 3747

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J
VIJAYAN D – Appellant
Versus
CANARA BANK – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.RASMI NAIR T.
For the Respondents: ADV. GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR (SC)

JUDGMENT

Learned counsel for the respondent Bank would point out that the interim order has not been complied with, and no amount, as directed therein, has been paid.

2. This Court notice the settled legal position that the High Court, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction, cannot interfere in legitimate proceedings initiated in terms of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 .

In the circumstances, the instant Writ Petition will stand dismissed Sd/-

C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top