Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.29 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 17 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
United Bank Of India vs Satyawati Tondon & Ors on 26 July, 2010
"22. Even though, this Court in United Bank of India v.
Satyawati Tondon [United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon,
(2010) 8 SCC 110 (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 260] held that in cases
relating to recovery of the dues of banks, financial institutions
and secured creditors, stay granted by the High Court would have
serious adverse impact on the financial health of such
bodies/institutions, which will ultimately prove detrimental to the
economy of the nation. Therefore, the High Court should be
extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion to
grant stay in such matters.
Agarwal Tracom Pvt. Ltd. vs Punjab National Bank on 27 November, 2017
(v) In Agarwal Tracom (P) Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank
(2018) 1 SCC 626, the Apex Court has held as follows:-
M/S Hindon Forge Pvt. Ltd. vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh Thr. District ... on 1 November, 2018
Hindon Forge (P) Ltd. [Hindon Forge
(P) Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2019) 2 SCC 198 : (2019) 1 SCC (Civ)
551] has held that the remedy of an aggrieved person by a secured
creditor under the Act is by way of an application before the
Debts Recovery Tribunal, however, borrowers and other
aggrieved persons are invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court
under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India without
availing the alternative statutory remedy. The Hon'ble High
Courts are well aware of the limitations in exercising their
jurisdiction when effective alternative remedies are available, but
a word of caution would be still necessary for the High Courts
that interim orders should generally not be passed without hearing
the secured creditor as interim orders defeat the very purpose of
expeditious recovery of public money."
Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Etc. Etc vs U.O.I. & Ors. Etc. Etc on 8 April, 2004
5. Section 13(3) of the Act provides that the notice under Section
13(2) of the Act shall give details of the amount payable by the borrower
as also the details of the secured assets intended to be enforced by the
bank. Section 13(3-A) of the Act was inserted by Act 30 of 2004 after the
decision of this Court in Mardia Chemicals vs. Union of India reported
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 3 of 16
W.P(MD) No.24581 of 2022
in (2004) 4 SCC 311 and provides for a last opportunity for the borrower
to make a representation to the secured creditor against the classification
of his account as a non-performing asset. The secured creditor is required
to consider the representation of the borrowers, and if the secured
creditor comes to the conclusion that the representation is not tenable or
acceptable, then he must communicate, within one week of the receipt of
the communication by the borrower, the reasons for rejecting the same.