Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.09 seconds)
Documents citing Unique Engineering Works vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 15 December, 2003

Mr.B.Pattabhiraman vs The Authorised Officer on 28 February, 2019

In this context, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision of the Uttaranchal High Court reported in 2004 (II) BC 241 = 2004 (1) UC 451 = 2004 (1) UD 359 (Unique Engineering Works Vs. Union of India), in which, the Division Bench made recommendations to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) regarding banks choosing to enforce security interest. The relevant portion of the said decision reads as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - R Subbiah - Full Document

S.Ranjitham vs The Authorized Officer on 3 January, 2020

5. Mr.S.Ayyathurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently made a contention that there was some discrepancy in the state 4/12 http://www.judis.nic.in WP.No.33998 of 2019 of affairs and the petitioner cannot be held liable / responsible for the same and would further add that there is also some discrepancy in crediting the subsidy amount also and without appreciating the fact that the petitioner had availed Tractor loan for agricultural operation and the mortgaged immovable property is also in the nature of agricultural property, action cannot be initiated under Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act. It is also the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondent Bank being a Nationalised Bank is expected to act in a fair and reasonable manner and by initiating proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, they want to deprive the petitioner of her sole livelihood namely the agricultural operation and he has also invited the attention of this Court to the judgment rendered by the Honble Supreme Court of India in Chameli Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (1996 (2) SCC 549 and Federal Bank Ltd., Vs. Sagar Thomas and Others (2003 (10) SCC 733) and Unique Engineering Works Vs. Union of India and Others (2003 SCC Online Utt 107).
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M Sathyanarayanan - Full Document

M/S Diamond Entertainment ... vs Religare Finvest Limited Through Its ... on 14 October, 2022

Corpn. Ltd. 2014 SCC OnLine Ori 75 made a reference to the Division Bench Judgement of Uttarakhand High Court in Unique Engg. Works Vs. Union of India 2003 SCC OnLine UTT 107 to observe that the SARFAESI Act was enacted by the Parliament to remedy a situation and provide a measure against secured interest. The key feature of SARFAESI Act is really to provide a procedural remedy against security interest already created. Therefore, an existing borrower, who had been granted financial assistance, was covered under Section 2(1) (f) of the SARFAESI Act as the borrower. Not only this, the definition clauses dealing with debt securities, financial assistance, financial assets, etc., clearly convey the legislative intent that the SARFAESI Act applied to all existing agreements irrespective of the fact whether the lender was as notified "financial institution" on the date of the execution of the Agreement with the borrower or not.
Delhi High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S Diamond Entertainment ... vs Religare Finvest Limited Through Its ... on 14 October, 2022

Corpn. Ltd. 2014 SCC OnLine Ori 75 made a reference to the Division Bench Judgement of Uttarakhand High Court in Unique Engg. Works Vs. Union of India 2003 SCC OnLine UTT 107 to observe that the SARFAESI Act was enacted by the Parliament to remedy a situation and provide a measure against secured interest. The key feature of SARFAESI Act is really to provide a procedural remedy against security interest already created. Therefore, an existing borrower, who had been granted financial assistance, was covered under Section 2(1) (f) of the SARFAESI Act as the borrower. Not only this, the definition clauses dealing with debt securities, financial assistance, financial assets, etc., clearly convey the legislative intent that the SARFAESI Act applied to all existing agreements irrespective of the fact whether the lender was as notified "financial institution" on the date of the execution of the Agreement with the borrower or not.
Delhi High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Vatika One India Next Private ... vs Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited on 19 December, 2022

Corpn. Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Ori 75 made a reference to the Division Bench Judgment of Uttarakhand High Court in Unique Engg. Works v. Union of India, 2003 SCC OnLine Utt 107 to observe that the SARFAESI Act was enacted by the Parliament to remedy a situation and provide a measure against secured interest. The key feature of SARFAESI Act is really to provide a procedural remedy against security interest already created. Therefore, an existing borrower, who had been granted financial assistance, was covered under Section 2(1)(f) of the SARFAESI Act as the borrower. Not only this, the definition clauses dealing with debt securities, financial assistance, financial assets, etc., clearly convey the legislative intent that the SARFAESI Act applied to all existing agreements irrespective of the fact whether the lender was as notified ―financial institution‖ on the date of the execution of the Agreement with the borrower or not.
Delhi High Court Cites 104 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

M.D. Frozen Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs Hero Fincorp Ltd. on 21 September, 2017

The Full Bench referred to a Division Bench judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court in Unique Engineering Works vs. Union of India19 which dealt with the issue of retrospectivity and retroactivity. In case of retroactivity, the Parliament takes note of the existing conditions and promulgates the remedial measures to rectify those conditions. In fact the SARFAESI Act, in our view, was to remedy such a position and provide a measure against secured interests. The scheme of the SARFAESI Act, is really to provide a procedural remedy against security interest already created. Therefore, an existing borrower, who had been granted financial assistance was covered under Section 2(f) of the said Act as a ‘borrower’. Not only this expression, the definition clauses dealing with ‘debt securities’, ‘financial assistance’, ‘financial assets’, etc., clearly convey the legislative intent that the SARFAESI Act applies to all existing agreements irrespective of the fact whether the lender was a notified ‘financial institution’ on the date of the execution of the agreement with the borrower or not. The scheme of the SARFAESI Act sets out an expeditious, 19 II 2004) BC 241 (DB) 13 procedural methodology, enabling the bank to take possession of the property for non-payment of dues, without intervention of the court. The mere fact that a more expeditious remedy is provided under the SARFAESI Act does not mean that it is substantive in character or has created an altogether new right. To accept the argument of the appellants would imply that they have an inherent right to delay the enforcement against the security interest!
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 41 - Cited by 16 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. vs M/S Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd on 23 February, 2018

The Full Bench referred to a Division Bench judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court in Unique Engineering Works v. Union of India which dealt with the issue of retrospectivity and retroactivity. In case of retroactivity, the Parliament takes note of the existing conditions and promulgates the remedial measures to rectify those conditions. In fact the SARFAESI Act, in our view, was to remedy such a position and provide a measure against secured interests. The scheme of the SARFAESI Act, is really to provide a procedural Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2018 Page 20 of 42 remedy against security interest already created.
Supreme Court of India Cites 67 - Cited by 3 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1