Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (1.21 seconds)Section 13 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Section 2 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]
Union Bank Of India vs Rajat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. on 2 March, 2020
5. Shri Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued
that when the appeal filed before the DRAT was not entertained for want
of deposit of 50% of the total outstanding debt then any order passed in
the said appeal is void ab initio and all the subsequent proceedings are no
nest He has placed reliance over the judgment passed by the Apex court in
case of Union of India Vs. Rajat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Others
reported in the year 2020 (3) SCC 770 in which the Apex Court has held
that High Court has no power akin to the powers vested in the Apex Court
to hold that pre-deposit is not required before entertaining the appeal by
the DRAT.
Section 17 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Hetchin Haokip vs The State Of Manipur on 20 July, 2018
He has also placed reliance over the judgment passed by the
Apex Court in case of Hetchin Haokip Vs. State of Manipur and others
reported in the year 2018 (9) SCC 562 and in case of Authorised Officer,
Indian Oversees Bank and another Vs. Ashok Saw Mill reported in the
year 2009 (8) SCC 366 and in case of Godavari Laxmi Cooperative
Bank Ltd. Vs. Union of India and another reported in the year 2012 (2)
Mh. L.J. 472.