Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)Section 13 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Ram Kishun & Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 2 February, 2010
1 Mr.Palodkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners,
submits that initially the reserve price of the writ property was
fixed at Rs.,,94,,,,,,,,/-0 in the year 20,17.. Now, fresh auction is
being resorted to and reserve price is reduced to
Rs.1,11,,,,,,,/-0. The petitioners are seeking a direction to
consider the application of the petitioners with regard to
correcting the reserve price. It is contended that even the ready
reckoner price is more than Rs.5,,,,,,,,,,/-0.
20 The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that
the ground raised by the petitioners would not be within the
purview of Section 17. of the Securitization and Reconstruction of
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 23:24:54 :::
{2}
wp15128.19.odt
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 20,,20
(for short, "the SARFAESI Act"). The learned Counsel relies on
the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Ram Kishun
and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (20,120)
11 SCC 511. The learned Counsel submits that the valuation of
the property should be determined fairly and reasonably. The
acceptance of valuation report must be based on proper
application of mind.
Chemical Mazdoor Sabha vs Industrial Development Bank on 19 April, 2010
The learned Counsel also relies on the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of
Chemical Mazdoor Sabha Vs. Industrial Development
Bank of India, 20,1, (7.) Mh.L.J. 161. The rule of alternate
remedy is a rule of self restraint.
Section 17 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
1