Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.43 seconds)
Documents citing Ivee Injectaa Ltd. And Anr. vs Junagadh Vibhagiya Nagrik Sahakari ... on 11 January, 2005

M/S M.Shamsudhin & Co vs The Indian Bank Represented on 5 March, 2010

In IVEE INJECTAA LTD. VS. JUNAGADH VIBHAGIYA NAGRIK(GUJ) ([2006] 129 COMPANY CASES 528), a decision of the Gujarat High Court, it was held that when secured creditor has already obtained a decree of a civil court/Debts Recovery Tribunal, issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act is not to be construed as institution of a suit in a civil court for enforcement of the mortgage, but the proceeding would be in the nature of execution of the decree.
Kerala High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Somnath Manocha vs Punjab And Sindh Bank & Anr. on 20 April, 2012

11. On this basis, it was argued that the remedy which is now sought to be enforced qua sale of mortgaged property was "claimed in respect of the financial asset" which had become time barred. It was submitted that the period for such a claim is covered by Article 62 in the Schedule to the Limitation Act and since that period has expired, provisions of Section 36 of the SARFAESI Act were attracted. The learned counsel distinguished the judgment of Gujarat High Court in Ivee Injectaa Ltd. (supra) on the ground that in that case, the bank had made claim in respect of mortgaged property within a period of 12 years.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 3 - A K Sikri - Full Document

M/S Modern Times Industries And Others vs Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal And ... on 2 August, 2011

Date of final decree is 20.05.1995; execution of decree had been initiated on 29.10.1995; for more than three years with effect from 15.09.2003 to 22.11.2006, execution proceedings had been stayed, the said period has to be excluded in terms of Section 15 of Limitation Act, while computing limitation, and viewed from the said point of view also, proceedings under Section 13 (2) on 28.09.2006 and Section 13 (4) on 11.04.2008 were well within limitation, and the judgment rendered by Gujrat High Court in the case of IVEE Injecta Ltd. vs. Junagarh Vibhagiya Nagarik Sahkari Bank Ltd. 2006 (129) Company Cases 528 , cited by petitioner, in effect, helps the Bank, wherein view has been taken , that Bank was entitled to execute the decree , within the period of limitation prescribed for execution of decree, as decree passed was covered by the definition of 'property' and 'financial asset', and proceedings under Section 13 (2) were valid and well within limitation. Distinction has to be drawn vis-a-vis time barred claim and live claim. Accordingly, viewed from such point of view, it is the proceedings under Sections 13 (2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act cannot be held to be one barred by limitation.
Allahabad High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 1 - V K Shukla - Full Document

Somnath Manocha vs Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. on 17 October, 2011

Section 36 SARFAESI Act requires that a claim should have been made by the lender in respect of the financial assets within the period of limitation prescribed under the LA. Section 36 does not mandate that the notice under Section 13 (2) SARFAESI Act must be issued within such period of limitation. A „claim‟ in respect of the financial asset, could be by way of any proceedings in accordance with law. Since the SARFAESI Act itself came into force only on 18th December 2002, the legislative intent was that even the sum owned to a secured creditor prior to that date can be sought to be recovered as long as the claim was made within the prescribed period of limitation. A similar view has been expressed by the Gujarat High Court in Ivee Injectaa Ltd. v. Junagadh Vibhagyiya Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. (2006) 129 Comp Cas 528 (Guj).
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - S Muralidhar - Full Document
1