Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.30 seconds)
Stci Finance Limited vs Imp Powers Limited & Ors & Ors on 27 April, 2026 cites

Icici Bank Ltd vs Sidco Leathers Ltd. & Ors on 28 April, 2006

120. The Appellant has relied on ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. SIDCO Leather Ltd. (2006) 10 SCC 452, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos., 1019, 1657 of 2024 & 893 of 2025 -58- a situation arising under general recovery laws where the dispute pertained to inter se priority between secured creditors in enforcement proceedings. The Court recognized the principle that a first charge holder would have priority over subsequent charge holders in such enforcement actions. However, the present case arises under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which is a complete and self-contained framework governing collective insolvency and liquidation. Moreover, in the present case, the Appellant has not been able to establish that it holds a valid and perfected first pari passu charge, as the alleged charge was conditional upon fulfilment of NOC requirements and execution of an inter se agreement, which admittedly never took place. In such a factual and legal context, the principle of priority of charge as laid down in SIDCO Leather cannot be applied to the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 111 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Andhra Pradesh State Financial ... vs Kotak Mahindra Bank, on 3 June, 2019

In "Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank & Ors., Writ Petition No. 43027 of 2019" the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana examined whether a valid pari passu charge could be said to exist merely on the basis of issuance of a No Objection Certificate and registration of charge. The Court held that unless there exists a binding contractual arrangement between the lenders, such as an inter se agreement, the mere issuance of an NOC or filing of charge with the Registrar of Companies does not result in creation of a legally enforceable pari passu charge. It was further held that registration of charge is only a Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos., 1019, 1657 of 2024 & 893 of 2025 -59- procedural requirement and cannot substitute the substantive act of creation of charge. In the present case, we find that although conditional NOCs were issued, the essential conditions, namely execution of an inter se agreement and issuance of reciprocal Ceding of the charge by the Appellant, were never fulfilled. Thus, applying the ratio of the above judgment, the alleged pari passu charge in favour of the Appellant never came into existence in law, and the Appellant cannot claim the status of a secured creditor on that basis.
Telangana High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - V Ramasubramanian - Full Document

State Bank Of India vs Director M/S Soni Ispat Limited And 8 ... on 1 August, 2014

In "State Bank of India vs. Soni Ispat Ltd., Appeal No. R-53 of 2013 (DRAT)" the Ld. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal considered the applicability of Section 13(9) of the SARFAESI Act in a situation involving multiple secured creditors holding joint security interests. The Tribunal observed that where the secured assets are subject to a common charge in favour of multiple lenders, the decision regarding enforcement of such assets is to be taken collectively, and once the statutory threshold of 60% in value is met, such decision becomes binding on all secured creditors, irrespective of whether they hold first charge or second charge. The Tribunal specifically noted that even a creditor claiming a first charge cannot act independently in disregard of the majority decision when the security interest is shared. In the present case, we find that the security over the assets of the Corporate Debtor was not exclusive but was part of a consortium lending structure, with joint and overlapping charges in favour of multiple creditors. It is also not in dispute that secured creditors holding more than the statutory threshold--initially 69.15% and subsequently exceeding 85%--had taken a conscious decision to relinquish their security interest and proceed with liquidation of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. We note that Section 13(9) of the SARFAESI Act, being the applicable law under Section 52(4) of the Code, operates squarely in the present case and negates the Appellant's claim of unilateral enforcement of security interest.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next