Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 51 (4.44 seconds)
Documents citing Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal vs Bank Of India & Ors on 5 August, 2015

H V Gopal vs The Bangalore Souhardha Central on 8 July, 2024

5. The Apex Court in Bank of Baroda (supra) did not decide the question which is posed herein. Instead, Apex Court was required to answer the question as to whether High Court of Allahabad was correct in staying the order of DRAT which had set aside the order of DRT passed in review jurisdiction. DRT had allowed the review application on the ground that one of the Directors of the Company had expired on 18.09.2012 which was before the date of auction, without his legal representative being noticed.
Karnataka High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - S R Kumar - Full Document

Hareram Cotton Industries Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Bank Of Baroda on 28 February, 2024

"Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the principle underlying the decision in C.A. No.5924 of 2015 titled as "Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal Vs. Bank of India & Ors." reported in (2016) 1 SCC 444 dealing with Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), must also apply to the dispensation provisioned in Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act being similarly worded.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - S Nagu - Full Document

Bensan Exim Corporation vs The Presiding Officer on 6 February, 2020

In the case on hand, the petitioner, challenging the measures initiated under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, especially, challenging the possession notice dated 14.08.2019, filed an appeal before the DRT – II, Chennai with a delay of one day and it came to be rejected based upon the decision rendered by the Division Bench in the Central Bank of India case.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - M Sathyanarayanan - Full Document

V.Vijayaprakash vs The Authorized Officer on 29 March, 2019

4.Therefore, following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in 2015 (4) CTC 809 [Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal Vs. Bank of India & others], we are of the considered view that the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal has got powers to condone the delay in filing the appeal. In view of the same, the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal is directed to decide the application in I.A.No.965 of 2010 in AIR.(SA).No.455 of 2010 on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the parties as expeditiously as possible.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - M Duraiswamy - Full Document

The Authorized Officer vs P.S.Savithri on 21 January, 2019

6.Therefore, following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in 2015 (4) CTC 809 [Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal Vs. Bank of India & others], we http://www.judis.nic.inare of the considered view that the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal has got powers to condone the delay in filing the appeal. In view of the same, 5 the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal is directed to decide the application in I.A.No.882 of 2013 in AIR.(SA).No.680 of 2013 on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the parties as expeditiously as possible.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - M Duraiswamy - Full Document

P.K.Radhakrishnan vs The Central Bank Of India on 13 January, 2020

(13)In the decision reported in 2016 [1] SCC 444 [Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal V. Bank of India and Others] , the question that arose for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is to the power 9/24 http://www.judis.nic.in WP.Nos.34860/2019 & 251/2020 of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 18[2] of the SARFAESI Act to condone the delay beyond prescribed period of limitation and held as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - M Sathyanarayanan - Full Document

The Authorised Officer vs K.J.George on 2 November, 2020

In Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal's case (supra) relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the question which was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal has power to condone delay in filing an application under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act. It was held in that matter that there is legislation by incorporation and Section 20(3) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDDB Act, for the sake of brevity), is incorporated in O.P (DRT) No.73 of 2018 23 Section 18(2) of the SARFAESI Act. With this, the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded that the delay in filing an appeal under Section 18(1) of the SARFEASI Act can be condoned under the provisions of Section 20(3) of the RDDB Act. Paragraph 4.3 of the said judgment needs to be quoted for our purpose.
Kerala High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - A M Badar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next