The Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Babulal Lade & Ors. – SC

I. Case Reference Case Citation : [2019] ibclaw.in 22 SC Case Name : The Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Babulal Lade & Ors. Petitioner(s) : The Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Respondent(s) : Babulal Lade & Ors. Appeal No.…

Whether an application under section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, at the instance of a borrower, is maintainable even before physical or actual possession of secured assets is taken by banks/financial institutions in exercise of their powers under section 13(4) of the Act read with rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 – Hindon Forge Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v State of Uttar Pradesh – SC

I. Case Reference Case Citation : [2018] ibclaw.in 59 SC Case Name : M/S Hindon Forge Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh Through District Magistrate Ghaziabad & Anr. Appellant(s) : M/S Hindon Forge Pvt. Ltd. &…

Ms Shree Anandhkumar Mills v. Ms Indian Overseas Bank & ors. – SC

I. Case Reference Case Citation : [2018] ibclaw.in 61 SC Case Name : M/S Sree Anandhakumar Mills Ltd. Vs. M/S Indian Overseas Bank & Ors. Appellant(s) : M/S Sree Anandhakumar Mills Ltd. Respondent(s) : M/S Indian Overseas Bank & Ors.…

Whether sub-section (3A) of Section 13 of SARFAESI Act 2002 is mandatory or directory in nature – ITC Limited v. Blue Coast Hotels Ltd. & Ors. – SC

I. Case Reference Case Citation : [2018] ibclaw.in 60 SC Case Name : ITC Limited Vs. Blue Coast Hotels Ltd. & Ors. Appellant(s) : ITC Limited Respondent(s) : Blue Coast Hotels Ltd. & Ors. Appeal No. : Civil Appeal Nos.…

Whether the order of Moratorium will cover the current charges payable by the Corporate Debtor for supply of water, electricity etc. or not – Dakshin Gujarat VIJ Company Ltd. VS Ms. ABG Shipyard Ltd. & Anr. – NCLAT

In order to access this content you need to login to your account. In case you are not a subscriber, Subscribe here.

The action of a Bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act available to challenge by the aggrieved u/s 17 was an efficacious remedy and the institution directly under Article 226 was not sustainable – Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Another v. Mathew K.C.

The writ petition ought not to have been entertained and the interim order granted for the mere asking without assigning special reasons, and that too without even granting opportunity to the Appellant to contest the maintainability of the writ petition and failure to notice the subsequent developments in the interregnum. The opinion of the Division Bench that the counter affidavit having subsequently been filed, stay/modification could be sought of the interim order cannot be considered sufficient justification to have declined interference.