The proviso to Rule 9(1) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 mandates the three methods of serve, affix and publish the notice to be carried out, with 15 days clear notice – E.K. Rajan Vs. The Authorized Officer, Canara Bank – Kerala High Court

In order to access this content you need to login to your account or in case you've already logged in, you may need to subscribe an iPlan, visit here for detail.
If you are still facing any issue in login, WhatsApp us : +91 9577994433 or Click here to WhatsApp us.

Since the dues of the Bank has already been liquidated in terms of compromise of OTS , the power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to quash the proceeding of criminal nature – Smt. Suman Devi Kela Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation – Chhattisgarh High Court

In order to access this content you need to login to your account or in case you've already logged in, you may need to subscribe an iPlan, visit here for detail.
If you are still facing any issue in login, WhatsApp us : +91 9577994433 or Click here to WhatsApp us.

Whether a Secured Creditor/Bank can file an application under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act 2002 without issuing notice under section 13(4) thereof or not? – HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. Parwati Cotton – Gujarat High Court

In order to access this content you need to login to your account or in case you've already logged in, you may need to subscribe an iPlan, visit here for detail.
If you are still facing any issue in login, WhatsApp us : +91 9577994433 or Click here to WhatsApp us.

Rule 8(5) of the Securitisation Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 does not contemplate to get a fresh valuation report for each and every sale notice – M/s. Soumya Engineering Vs. The Chief Manager Indian Bank – Karnataka High Court

In order to access this content you need to login to your account or in case you've already logged in, you may need to subscribe an iPlan, visit here for detail.
If you are still facing any issue in login, WhatsApp us : +91 9577994433 or Click here to WhatsApp us.

Once the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act came to an end on account of compromise arrived at between the parties, whether a Bank can seek police assistance u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 – Gautam Joshi Vs. Piramal Capital And Housing Finance, Earlier Known As Dewan Hosing Finance Corporation Ltd. (DHFL) – Bombay High Court

In order to access this content you need to login to your account or in case you've already logged in, you may need to subscribe an iPlan, visit here for detail.
If you are still facing any issue in login, WhatsApp us : +91 9577994433 or Click here to WhatsApp us.

Whether High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has the jurisdiction to extend the period of OTS – Arvindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India – Punjab & Haryana High Court

In order to access this content you need to login to your account or in case you've already logged in, you may need to subscribe an iPlan, visit here for detail.
If you are still facing any issue in login, WhatsApp us : +91 9577994433 or Click here to WhatsApp us.