Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.42 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 18 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Varimadugu Obi Reddy vs B. Sreenivasulu on 16 November, 2022
In Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. Sreenivasulu: (2023) 2 SCC 168 the securitisation application had been dismissed by the DRT, the dismissal order was not challenged and it became final. After taking possession of the mortgaged property, the Bank issued a notice to the borrowers calling upon them to repay the outstanding amount and thereafter it issued e-auction sale notice dated 25.02.2015 fixing the date of auction of the scheduled property on 28.03.2015. That borrowers challenged the e-auction sale notice before the DRT. The DRT passed an interim order dated 26.03.2015, directing the Bank to proceed with the auction-sale of the secured asset with a further direction not to issue the sale certificate provided the borrowers deposit Rs 6 lakhs within 15 days from the date of the said order, i.e., by 09.04.2015. It was made clear that in the event of the respondent borrowers fail to deposit the said amount, the respondent Bank will be at liberty to issue the sale certificate in favour of the highest bidder. The borrowers failed to deposit Rs 6 lakhs by 09.04.2015 and they filed an application on 09.04.2015 seeking extension of further 15 days time from 10.04.2015 to deposit the amount and the Tribunal passed an order dated 17.04.2015 granting extension of 15 days time to deposit Rs 6 lakhs and directed the Bank and the borrowers to maintain status quo. Since the dispute was ongoing before the Tribunal and the borrowers had failed to comply with the interim order dated 26.03.2015 to deposit Rs 6 lakhs within 15 days from the date of passing of the order by 10.04.2015, the Bank proceeded with the auction-sale in terms of liberty granted by the Tribunal. The auction purchaser had deposited Rs.5,54,000/- as the earnest money and he further deposited 25% amount after being declared the highest bidder. The purchaser deposited the balance 75% amount on 15.04.2015 and a sale certificate was issued in his favour. The auction sale had already been finalised and the sale certificate had already been issued when the Tribunal passed the order dated 17.04.2015 granting extension of 15 days time to the borrowers to deposit Rs 6 lakhs.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
S.N. Mukherjee vs Union Of India on 28 August, 1990
In S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India: (1990) 4 SCC 594, the Honble Supreme Court held that: -
Section 17 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Balkrishna Rama Tarle Dead Through Lrs vs Phoenix Arc Private Limited on 26 September, 2022
In Balkrishna Rama Tarle v. Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd.: (Supra), the Honble Supreme Court held that: -
Phr Invent Educational Society vs Uco Bank on 20 May, 2022
In PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank: (2024) 6 SCC 579, the Honble Supreme Court followed the law laid down in Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. Sreenivasulu (Supra) and also followed some other judgments. The relevant passage from the aforesaid judgment is being quoted below: -
Kranti Associates (I) Pvt. Ltd vs Masood Ahmad Khan on 6 July, 2007
In Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (Supra) the Honble Supreme Court examined verious precedents on the point and summarised the law as follows: -