Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3473 (MAD)

G. Saravanan v. Manager, REPCO Home Finance Ltd. , Trichy

2014-09-19

M.JAICHANDREN, R.MAHADEVAN

body2014
Order (M. Jaichandren, J.) 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned. 2. It is found that, in the present Writ Petitions, certain issues had arisen, relating to the action initiated by the respondent banks concerned, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') . 3. Since common issues are arising for the consideration of this Court, all the Writ petitions are heard together and a common order is being passed. 4. At this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petitions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent banks concerned had produced memos, dated 18.09.2014, stating that in view of the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in K.Arockiaraj Vs Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, reported in 2013 (5) CTC 225 , the respondent banks concerned have decided not to implement the order obtained under Section 14 of the Act, from the Chief Judicial Magistrates concerned. In the said memos, it has also been stated that the respondent banks concerned would abide by the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court, in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar Vs. International Assets Recn.Co.Ltd, reported in2014 (6) SCC 1. 5. In view of the memos, dated 18.09.2014, as no further orders are necessary, the present Writ Petitions are liable to be closed. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions stand closed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.