P.Amutha Vs. the Area Manager

P.Amutha vs The Area Manager

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 29, 2011

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/920419

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/920419
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Vinod K.Sharma, J.
Decided On: Jul 29, 2011
Case Number: W.P.(MD)No.2881 of 2006 and W.P(MP)(MD)No.3150 of 2006
Subject: Banking

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Banking

Key legal issue: Banking
Acts & sections: Scrutinisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act, 2002

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

P.Amutha

Advocate Mr.M.P.Senthil, Adv.

Respondent

The Area Manager

Advocate M/s.S.Bharathy Kannan, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Scrutinisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act, 2002

Excerpt

1. the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, to quash the demand notice, dated 21.02.2005 vide which the respondent has called upon the petitioner to clear the default. 2. the impugned notice stipulates, that in the event of non- payment of demanded amount within the stipulated period of 60 days, the respondent will proceed under the scrutinisation and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security act, 2002(hereinafter called as the 'act'). 3. the non-compliance by the petitioner, of the demand notice, could give right to the respondent, to proceed under the 'act', and takes possession. the petitioner in that event had the statutory remedy of appeal. the writ petition is pre-mature as the order affecting the rights of the petitioner is yet to be passed. this court cannot issue the writ to bar a party to take statutory remedy in accordance with law, specially when, the act under which action is proposed, gives statutory remedy to aggrieved party. 4. accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not competent, because of the availability of alternative remedy of appeal under the 'act'. 5. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed. no costs.

Full Judgment

1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the demand notice, dated 21.02.2005 vide which the respondent has called upon the petitioner to clear the default.

2. The impugned notice stipulates, that in the event of non- payment of demanded amount within the stipulated period of 60 days, the respondent will proceed under the Scrutinisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act, 2002(hereinafter called as the 'Act').

3. The non-compliance by the petitioner, of the demand notice, could give right to the respondent, to proceed under the 'Act', and takes possession. The petitioner in that event had the statutory remedy of appeal. The Writ petition is pre-mature as the order affecting the rights of the petitioner is yet to be passed. This Court cannot issue the Writ to bar a party to take statutory remedy in accordance with law, specially when, the Act under which action is proposed, gives statutory remedy to aggrieved party.

4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as not competent, because of the availability of alternative remedy of appeal under the 'Act'.

5. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2011 Same Parties P.Amutha vs The Area Manager Same Subject Banking Same Judge Vinod K.Sharma, J. Acts & Sections Scrutinisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enf...