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

2011 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 11

MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. Tamilvanan, J.
Ashok Chand L. and Others v. Indian Bank Chennai and Another


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: C. Johnson

1. The writ petition has been filed under Art.226 of the Constitution, seeking an order to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the records of the second respondent pertaining to the possession notice, dated 30.08.2005 and the consequential sale notice, dated 16.11.2005 and quash the same.

2. According to the petitioners, the impugned order of the second respondent was passed invoking the provisions of S.13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein after referred to as SARFAESI ACT), however, the impugned possession notice, dated 30.08.2005 and subsequent sale notice, dated 16.11.2005 are totally illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, hence, liable to be quashed.

3. The petitioners have further stated that they have submitted their explanation, dated 22.01.2005 to the notice sent under S.13(2) of SARFAESI Act, however, without considering the same, the impugned notice was issued, hence, the same is liable to be quashed. It is further contended that no valid mortgage has been created and a non - speaking order was passed by the second respondent, without affording adequate oppor





























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