Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 77 (1.70 seconds)
Axis Bank Limited vs Madhav Prasad Aggarwal And 2 Ors on 26 October, 2018 cites

Wander Ltd. And Anr. vs Antox India P. Ltd. on 26 April, 1990

It is submitted that in any case the plaintiffs would not succeed in getting any relief unless the mortgage as entered by the bank with Orbit is declared to be unenforceable, for which the only forum to assail any rights preventing ::: Uploaded on - 26/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2018 03:34:58 ::: Pvr 21 comapl 360-17 Axis-22-10-18.odt the bank from resorting to the measures under Securitisation Act was to approach the DRT under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act. The DRT is not precluded from considering the arguments of the plaintiffs under MOFA, while considering whether the measures as adopted by the bank under Section 13 of the Securitisation Act, could be resorted or not. A reference is made to Section 5(b), (c), 5A and Section 6 of the Banking Regulation Act,1949 to submit that these provisions are clearly indicative of the kind of business the bank can undertake. It is submitted that as regards the maintainability of the appeal, the decision in Wander Ltd. And Anr. vs Antox India P. Ltd.6 as referred on behalf of the plaintiffs, is not applicable in the facts of the present case as there can be no question, of a possible or a plausible view of the court, in passing an order on an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the CPC. It is then contended that ouster of jurisdiction has to be strictly construed. It is next contended that the contention of the plaintiffs that Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act is applicable cannot be accepted as the said provision is only applicable for refund of the money. It is submitted that there is no money claim made against the bank.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1060 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next