Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (5.03 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Ram Murty Pyara Lal & Ors. vs Central Bank Of India And Others on 1 November, 2010

Haldiram Incorporation Pvt Ltd vs Amrit Hatcheries Pvt Ltd on 14 February, 2022

28. Respondent No.2 has placed reliance on Ram Murthy Pyara Lal & Ors vs Central Bank of India Ors., reported in 2010 (120) DRJ 437 (DB) to state those auction sale proceedings are not final under the SARFAESI Act unless SA of the borrower before DRT is decided. It is argued that the reliance placed is misplaced and misconceived, and a part of the judgment is being read in isolation to Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.449 of 2020 with Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.504 of 2020 with Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.746 of 2020 Page 117 of 150 mislead this Tribunal. However, at the very outset, the decision in Rama Murthy does not apply to the facts of this case as it does not deal with the Amended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act. (Section 13(8) before its Amendment in 2016). Moreover, the judgment deals with the right of redemption available to the borrower and in no manner questions or halts the continuation and conclusion of a sale under the SARFAESI Act.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 65 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Haldiram Incorporation Pvt Ltd vs Amrit Hatcheries Pvt Ltd on 14 February, 2022

28. Respondent No.2 has placed reliance on Ram Murthy Pyara Lal & Ors vs Central Bank of India Ors., reported in 2010 (120) DRJ 437 (DB) to state those auction sale proceedings are not final under the SARFAESI Act unless SA of the borrower before DRT is decided. It is argued that the reliance placed is misplaced and misconceived, and a part of the judgment is being read in isolation to Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.449 of 2020 with Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.504 of 2020 with Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.746 of 2020 Page 117 of 150 mislead this Tribunal. However, at the very outset, the decision in Rama Murthy does not apply to the facts of this case as it does not deal with the Amended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act. (Section 13(8) before its Amendment in 2016). Moreover, the judgment deals with the right of redemption available to the borrower and in no manner questions or halts the continuation and conclusion of a sale under the SARFAESI Act.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 65 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Satnam Agri Products Ltd. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 December, 2014

18. We may in this context mention that a Division Bench of this Court in Ram Murty Pyara Lal Vs. Central Bank of India, 174 (2010) DLT 310, relying on paras 18 and 54 of Mardia Chemicals Limited Vs. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311 and differing from the judgment of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Lakshmi Shankar Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Authorized Officer, Indian Bank, AIR 2008 Madras 181 held that the DRT, in a proceeding under Section 17 of the Securitization Act is empowered to adjudicate the exact amount due to the secured creditor.
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 3 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Blue Coast Hotels Ltd vs Ifci Limited And 3 Ors And Blue Coast Aero ... on 23 March, 2016

119 As noted, ITC came into picture only after its participation in auction process of the property in question. ITC was the sole bidder, knowing fully the background of the litigation and before tendering and participating in the auction process. ITC's claim, therefore, is that they are bonafide purchaser. The sale was proceeded without any obstruction, pending the Petition/Litigation. The interest of ITC, therefore as stated, was created on the conclusion of the sale. The case of ITC is that, being the bonafide purchaser rights shall not be impeachable as contemplated under Section 69 of the TP Act. The reliance were placed upon the Judgments of Central Bank of India (supra), Padanathil Rugmini Amma (supra), Nawab Zain-Ul-Abdin Khan (supra) Janak Raj (supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 125 - Cited by 0 - A V Mohta - Full Document

Blue Coast Hotels Limited vs Ifci Limited And 3 Ors on 23 March, 2016

119 As noted, ITC came into picture only after its participation in auction process of the property in question. ITC was the sole bidder, knowing fully the background of the litigation and before tendering and participating in the auction process. ITC's claim, therefore, is that they are bonafide purchaser. The sale was proceeded without any obstruction, pending the Petition/Litigation. The interest of ITC, therefore as stated, was created on the conclusion of the sale. The case of ITC is that, being the bonafide purchaser rights shall not be impeachable as contemplated under Section 69 of the TP Act. The reliance were placed upon the Judgments of Central Bank of India (supra), Padanathil Rugmini Amma (supra), Nawab Zain-Ul-Abdin Khan (supra) Janak Raj (supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 125 - Cited by 4 - A V Mohta - Full Document

Blue Coast Hotels Ltd vs Ifci Limited And State Bank Of ... on 23 March, 2016

119 As noted, ITC came into picture only after its participation in auction process of the property in question. ITC was the sole bidder, knowing fully the background of the litigation and before tendering and participating in the auction process. ITC's claim, therefore, is that they are bonafide purchaser. The sale was proceeded without any obstruction, pending the Petition/Litigation. The interest of ITC, therefore as stated, was created on the conclusion of the sale. The case of ITC is that, being the bonafide purchaser rights shall not be impeachable as contemplated under Section 69 of the TP Act. The reliance were placed upon the Judgments of Central Bank of India (supra), Padanathil Rugmini Amma (supra), Nawab Zain-Ul-Abdin Khan (supra) Janak Raj (supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 125 - Cited by 0 - A V Mohta - Full Document

Blue Coast Hotels Ltd vs Ifci Limited And Anr And Pacl Limited ... on 23 March, 2016

119 As noted, ITC came into picture only after its participation in auction process of the property in question. ITC was the sole bidder, knowing fully the background of the litigation and before tendering and participating in the auction process. ITC's claim, therefore, is that they are bonafide purchaser. The sale was proceeded without any obstruction, pending the Petition/Litigation. The interest of ITC, therefore as stated, was created on the conclusion of the sale. The case of ITC is that, being the bonafide purchaser rights shall not be impeachable as contemplated under Section 69 of the TP Act. The reliance were placed upon the Judgments of Central Bank of India (supra), Padanathil Rugmini Amma (supra), Nawab Zain-Ul-Abdin Khan (supra) Janak Raj (supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 125 - Cited by 2 - A V Mohta - Full Document
1   2 3 Next