The High Court has not properly appreciated the fact that what was challenged before it was regarding nongrant of any interim relief pending the appeal before the DRAT. Main appeal was yet to be considered by the DRAT on merits. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has decided and disposed of the writ petition as if the High Court was considering the final decision of the DRAT.
Tag: DRT
Sunil Poddar and ORS Vs Union Bank of India-08/01/2008
Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993—Section 22(2)(g)—Transfer of suit—Ex parte decree—Notice sent to the old address though new address was available—Advertisement also published in a Hindi daily—Defendants aware of the proceedings before the Civil Court—It was not necessary for the Bank to get summonses published in a newspaper after the matter was transferred in accordance with law to the DRT—Actual service of summons is not required if (i) he had notice of the date of hearing of the suit; and (ii) if he had sufficient time to appear and answer the claim of the plaintiff—Impugned order affirmed.
Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank and Another Vs M/s. Ashok Saw Mill-16/07/2009
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.
UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs RAJAT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT- 02/03/2020
A guarantor or a mortgagor, who has mortgaged its property to secure the repayment of the loan, stands on the same footing as a borrower and if he wants to file an appeal, he must comply with the terms of Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.
NAHAR INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES LTD. Vs. HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION
The inherent power of a court is in addition to and complementary to the powers expressly conferred under the Code. But that power will not be exercised if its exercise is inconsistent with, or comes into conflict with, any of…
Read More NAHAR INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES LTD. Vs. HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION
Appeal under SARFAESI Act
17. Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act reads as under: "17. Right to appeal.--(1) Any person (including borrower) aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised…
The remedy to a borrower who received possession notice u/s 13(4) SARFAESI Act is to file an appeal to Debts Recovery Tribunal within 45 days
DELHI HIGH COURT SINGLE BENCH ( Before : Dr. S. Muralidhar, J ) SOMNATH MANOCHA — Appellant Vs. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK AND OTHERS — Respondent Writ Petition (C) 7228 of 2005 Decided on : 17-10-2011 Constitution of India, 1950…
INDERJEET ARYA AND ANOTHER Vs. ICICI BANK LTD
Liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor if the latter liability is scaled down the liability of the surety will accordingly stand reduced or even extinguished. The principle in so far as this aspect is…
Debts Recovery Tribunal has the authority to nullify any action taken wrongfully u/s 17 of the SRFAESI Act.
The Debts Recovery Tribunal has an authority even to invalidate or nullify any action already taken if it is established that any error or wrongful use of the powers has been established before it, invoking u/s 17 of the SRFAESI Act.
Dwarika Prasad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.[ALL SC 2018 MARCH]
KEYWORDS:-DRT PROCEEDING-guarantor of loan- sale certificate- DATE:-March 06, 2018 "The appellant, is however, entitled to a refund of his deposit of Rs 7,00,000 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of deposit till payment. The bank has in…
Read More Dwarika Prasad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.[ALL SC 2018 MARCH]
Advocatetanmoy Law Library 