Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.26 seconds)Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Etc. Etc vs U.O.I. & Ors. Etc. Etc on 8 April, 2004
5. Mr.R.Venkatesan, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended
that the account of the petitioner ought not to have been determined as a
non-performing asset, as he has paid the amount, even after possession
notice. The Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with a case regarding non-
performance asset, in a case reported in 2004 (4) SCC 311 [Mardia Chemicals
Ltd. and others Vs. Union of India and others]. According to the petitioner,
as per the ratio laid down in the said Judgment, the account of the
petitioner ought not to have been determined as a non-performing asset. The
property in question is only a dwelling house. Right to shelter is a
constitutional right as per Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The
respondent did not send sale notice to the petitioner, but effected only
paper publication, which is contrary to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.
For the reasons stated above, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed
for quashing of sale notice.
Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 7 February, 2011
6. The present writ petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner has
already challenged the possession notice before the Debts Recovery Tribunal
and the same is stated to be pending. The respondent has filed O.S.No.44 of
2015 on the file of Sub-Court, Sivakasi, for the same relief. Proceedings
taken under the SARFAESI Act, cannot be challenged in writ proceedings. This
issue has already been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in the Judgment reported
in 2011 (2) SCC 782 [Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and others Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others].
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 17 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
1