Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2007 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (12) TMI 295 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHMandatory notice u/s.13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - whether arbitrary, illegal and violative of the Act and also violative of principles of natural justice? Held that:- The stand taken by the writ petitioners in both these Writ Petitions cannot be held to be in affirmative in favour of the petitioners and hence, the same is hereby negatived. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that a civil suit is pending and it is needless to say that the writ petitioner in W.P.No.6846/2007 is at liberty to pursue such remedy in accordance with law. Certain of the directions of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal also need not detain this Court any longer for the reason that this Court is inclined to follow the views expressed by the learned Division Bench of the Madras High Court and the learned Division Bench of the Bombay High Court as well, as specified above. Hence, viewed from any angle, the writ petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for in these Writ Petitions, but however, it is made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to pursue the other alternative remedies and also to pursue the suit said to be pending, and such proceedings to be decided on their own merits. Suffice to state that in the light of the respective stands taken by the parties, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that no relief as such can be granted in these Writ Petitions and these Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed subject to the above observations. The non-payment of costs as per the directions of the draft also had been canvassed before this Court. It is needless to say that the parties are at liberty to pursue their remedies in accordance with law.
|