Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.38 seconds)The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002
Margaret Lalita Samuel vs Indo Commercial Bank Ltd on 25 September, 1978
15. We also place reliance on the Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka in 'Margaret Lalita Samuel' Vs. 'Commercial Bank Limited', (1979)
2 SCC 396, wherein it is observed in para 10 as follows:
Section 18 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 133 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 134 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 135 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 141 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Dena Bank (Now Bank Of Baroda) vs C. Shivakumar Reddy on 4 August, 2021
16. Keeping in view that the OTS has been signed by the Appellant, Clause 3
of the Deed of Guarantee, and also Clauses 5, 9 & 10 of the Deed of Guarantee,
we are of the considered view that having invoked the Guarantee on 03.03.2015,
the question of invoking the Guarantee again, as per law, does not arise.
Addressing the question of Limitation, we place reliance on the Judgement of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Dena Bank (now Bank of Baroda)' Vs. 'C.
Shivkumar Reddy & Anr.', (2021) 10 SCC 330, in which the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has clearly laid down that on issuance of a Recovery Certificate, fresh cause
of action would arise to initiate proceedings under Section 7 of the Code. Further
Clauses 9 & 10 of the Deed of Guarantee specify that the Guarantee is a
continuing one. We find it a fit case to consider the Recovery Certificate which
has been issued by the Hon'ble DRT, Mumbai on 25.04.2016 and the second OTS
dated 12.03.2018 and the part payment which has been made on 28.03.2018 read
together with the warrant of attachment dated 20.06.2019 and the date of filing
of the Petition dated 17.03.2022 we observe that the Section 7 Petition is not
'barred by Limitation'.