time started claiming that
the Petitioner No. 1 had wrongly invoked the pledge and they had dealt
with the shares, both being factually incorrect ... dealing in the pledged shares and from giving effect to the
invocation of pledge. Notably, the invocation took place on 24th of
August 2011, proceedings
State Bank Of India vs Venugopal Dhoot & Ors. & Ors on 14 May, 2026
account
of any invocation/enforcement of such
guarantee or security provided, as the case
may be (including the invocation of pledge
over shares of Electrosteel ... have created pledge of shares of ECL
or ESL, makes any claims against ESL or Vedanta or SPV on
account of any invocation/enforcement
officer process. It is emphatically contended
that the decision to invoke the pledged shares was not
pursuant to the circular of the RBI dated ... circular of
12.02.2018 has nothing to do with the invocation of pledge
2
IBC
3
NCLT
-8-
WA No. 3680 of 2019
under the pledge
Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 267 of 2026
-17-
invocation, ownership remains with the pledgor. Therefore, holding pledged
shares cannot amount to management or policy control ... assigned to
EARCL. The pledged shares were never invoked. Until invocation of a pledge,
ownership and voting rights remain with the pledgor. A pledgee merely
Central Transmission Utility Of India ... vs Sumit Binani on 23 March, 2026
2026 INSC 284
Kasam Sathvik vs State Of Telangana on 5 May, 2026
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE
Roseland Buildtech Pvt Ltd vs Vihaan 43 Reality Pvt Ltd Earlier Known ... on 5 January
National Asset Reconstruction Company ... vs Mumbai Metropolitan Region ... on 24 February, 2026
2026:BHC-OS
Mumbai Metropolitan Region ... vs Mumbai Metro One Private Limited on 24 February, 2026
2026:BHC
