Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.30 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 13 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
10. The Apex Court in the case of United Bank of
India .vs. Satyawati Tondon and others4 has heavily come
down on High Courts entertaining writ petitions pertaining to
the proceedings arising out of SARFAESI Act. The Apex Court
in the said judgment has clearly held that High Court should
not entertain writ petitions when the aggrieved party has a
efficacious remedy before the Tribunal. It would be useful to
refer Paragraph 55 of the judgment which reads as under:
Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission ... vs Cg Power And Industrial Solutions ... on 12 May, 2021
Auth.Offr.,Indian Overseas Bank & Anr vs M/S.Ashok Saw Mill on 16 July, 2009
"15. The SARFAESI Act is a complete code in itself
which provides the procedure to be followed by the
secured creditor and also the remedy to the aggrieved
parties including the borrower. In such circumstance as
already taken note by the High Court in writ proceedings
if there is any discrepancy in the manner of classifying
the account of the appellants as NPA or in the manner in
which the property was valued or was auctioned, the DRT
is vested with the power to set aside such auction at the
stage after the secured creditor invokes the power under
Section 13 of SARFAESI Act. This view is fortified by the
decision of this Court in the case of Authorised Officer,
Indian Overseas Bank & Anr. vs. Ashok Saw Mill (2009) 8
SCC 366 wherein it is held hereunder: "34. The
provisions of Section 13 enable the secured creditors,
such as banks and financial institutions, not only to take
possession of the secured assets of the borrower, but
also to take over the management of the business of the
borrower, including the right to transfer by way of lease,
assignment or sale for realising secured assets, subject
to the conditions indicated in the two provisos to clause
Oasis Dealcom Pvt. Ltd vs Khazana Dealcomm Pvt.Ltd. & Ors on 8 November, 2016
K. Virupaksha vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 March, 2020
The said question is no more resintegra. The Apex Court in
the case of K. Virupaksha and another .vs. State of
9
Karnataka3 has held at paragraph 15, which is culled out as
under: