In Roshan Narayanan C.S. Vs. Authorized Officer, the single bench of Kerala High Court has squared the pitch in what has always been a contentious issue by declaring that the reference to a “measure” in Section 13 (4), in its application to clause (a) thereof, must be taken as including a reference to any step in the effectuation of that measure, commencing with the issuance of any notice under Rule 8 (2), and including the stages of approaching the Magistrate, obtaining an order from him, issuance of a notice by the Advocate Commissioner, and culminating with the taking of actual physical possession of the secured asset. Each of the above steps, in the measure adopted, would give rise to a cause of action to approach the DRT through an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
In the judgement, the Hon'ble judge also called the SARFAESI act as harsh and expressed dissatisfaction with the judgement of the Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank v. V. Noble Kumar & Ors. The said judgment had been seen by the legal fraternity to have brought some semblance of conclusion to endless litigation.
In the judgement, the Hon'ble judge also called the SARFAESI act as harsh and expressed dissatisfaction with the judgement of the Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank v. V. Noble Kumar & Ors. The said judgment had been seen by the legal fraternity to have brought some semblance of conclusion to endless litigation.
Comments
Post a Comment