STATUTORY INTERPRETATION-It is now well settled principle of law that the Court cannot enlarge the scope of legislation or intention when the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous. Narrow and pedantic construction may not always be given effect to. Courts should avoid a construction, which would reduce the legislation to futility. It is also well settled that every statute is to be interpreted without any violence to its language. It is also trite that when an expression is capable of more than one meaning, the court would attempt to resolve the ambiguity in a manner consistent with the purpose of the provision, having regard to the great consequences of the alternative constructions.

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002—Sections 13 and 17—Enforcement of security interest—Jurisdiction of DRT with regard to post 13(4) events—DRT is entitled to question the action taken by secured creditor and transactions entered into by virtue of Section 13(4)—DRT has been vested with authority to even set aside a transaction including sale and to restore possession to borrower in appropriate cases—DRT has jurisdiction to deal with a post 13(4) situation—Action taken by a secured creditor in terms of Section 13(4) is open to scrutiny and cannot only be set aside but even status quo ante can be restored by DRT. 

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 39, Rules 1 and 2—Injunction-Prima facie case made out by appellant-Trust as to agreement for sale, which has to go to trial—Whether there was a concluded contract or not between appellant-Trust and the respondents is a matter of evidence and can only be gone into during trial of suit—Interim order is required to be passed to maintain status quo of suit property—Prima facie case is in favour of appellant-Trust

Recent Updates