required under rule 8(6) of the Security
Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 was never served upon him.
4. The learned DRAT vide ... laid down that " ... Sub-rule (6) of Rule 8 and Sub-rule(1)
of Rule 9 together, the service
Madras Bar Association vs Union Of India on 14 July, 2021
Author: L. Nageswara Rao
having served notice upon the borrower in terms of Rule 8(6)
of the Rules, 2002. The second issue was whether Section ... that it is mandatory to serve the sale notice issued
under Rule 8(6) by all the three modes separately i.e. by publication
11th March, 2020 after giving requisite notice
under Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules of 2002 to the
petitioners. The petitioners however ... under Rules 8
and 9 of the Rules of 2002. Therefore, the say of
the petitioners that there is violation of Rules
DRTs, and the DRAT in Delhi are non-functional. Although
the petitioners have filed Misc. APPL. 133/2021 before the DRAT, Delhi
in terms ... Chairperson
of DRAT, Delhi is also vacant, the petitioner seeks exercise of such
power by this Court.
8. I am of the view that such
DRAT,
Delhi. This Court also disposed of petitions under Article 226 of the
Constitution with liberty to the petitioners to approach the DRAT, Delhi ... disposal to any other Tribunal"
8. It is clear from the above that the Chairperson of the DRAT has
jurisdiction to transfer a case
third respondent is
concerned.
The said order dated 6.9.2019 passed by the
DRAT, Chennai, came to be challenged by the appellants
before the High Court ... therefore submits that the said notice was
in blatant breach of Rule 8(6) and Rule 9(1) of the Security
Interest (Enforcement
present situation where the office of the Chairperson
of DRAT, Delhi is also vacant, I am of the view that exercise of such
power by this ... writ jurisdiction should rarely be
exercised.
8. In United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others (2010) 8
SCC 110, the Court held
DRTs in Delhi as well as in the
office of the Chairperson, DRAT, the petitioners' request is merited. The
alternative would ... available before the DRT and DRAT.
6. In United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others (2010) 8
SCC 110, the Supreme Court held
authority. By the judgment and order impugned dated July
30, 2021, the DRAT agreed in principle that the secured creditor was
not entitled to forfeit ... forfeited and neither the DRT nor the DRAT had any
authority to question the forfeiture.
8. In support of the secured creditor's case
