IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
SOPHIE VINAY – Appellant
Versus
CANARA BANK – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of loan and npa status (Para 2) |
| 2. reliefs sought by appellant in w.p. (Para 4) |
| 3. arguments regarding sale and statutory violations (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. writ jurisdiction and availability of alternative remedies (Para 14 , 19) |
| 5. court's dismissal of the writ appeal (Para 21 , 23) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.29621 of 2006 has filed this writ appeal under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, challenging the judgment dated 16.10.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.
2.1. The appellant states that the 1st respondent had issued Ext.P6 notice dated 27.05.2006 invoking Rule 6(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules , 2002, which, according to the appellant is a wrong provision which pertains to movable properties and the actual provision ought to have been incorporated by the bank is Rule 8(6) of the said Rules. Thereafter, the principal debtor M/s. Surya Sea Products had submitted Ext.P8 representation dated 18.09.2006 to the 1st respondent bank requesting an OTS.
“a) Call for the records leading to the issue of Ext.P6, and quash and all proceedings pursuant thereto, by the issue of a writ of certiorari or such o
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.