218

Whether civil suit on the issue of mortgage can only be decided by Civil Court or the same can also be adjudicated by DRT under the provisions of DRT/ SARFASI Act – Murtaza Malik Vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd. – Madhya Pradesh High Court

Hon’ble High Court held that the plaintiffs have also averred in the plaint that the defendant has already initiated proceedings under the Securitizatoin Act for taking possession of the building structure falsely claiming that the superstructure of the building is also mortgaged, but this Court has no hesitation to hold that this is not such an issue which cannot be decided by the DRT and efforts on the part of the plaintiffs to circumvent the DRT proceedings cannot be allowed to succeed, the only purpose of which is to defeat the recovery proceedings initiated under the Securitization Act. This court is also of the firm view that as the DRT deals solely with the bank loan transaction, the subject of mortgage is something that the DRT has an expertise in handling and it cannot be said that the issue of mortgage can be decided by a civil court only.

Whether civil suit on the issue of mortgage can only be decided by Civil Court or the same can also be adjudicated by DRT under the provisions of DRT/ SARFASI Act – Murtaza Malik Vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd. – Madhya Pradesh High Court Read Post »

As per the terms of IBC 2016, for any work done prior to the CIRP period and for amounts pending in relation to the same, the Creditor is required to file its claim – Sree Ganesh Constructions Vs. IVRCL Ltd. Represented by Mr. Suntanu Sinha Liquidator – NCLAT Chennai

In the instant case, the Appellant had filed the Form C for admission of the claim in relation to the pending amount 26.08.2019, one day after the last date for submission of the claim. The Liquidator had sent an email that the claim submitted by the Appellant cannot be considered by the Liquidator as it is filed after the expiry of the last date for submission of the claim. The application I.A. No. 454 of 2020 pertains to release of the pending amount, and not in relation to the admission of the claim, filed by the Appellant for the condonation of the delay. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered view that there are no substantial grounds to interfere with the impugned order dated 27.08.2021, whereby and whereunder, the Adjudicating Authority had directed the Liquidator to admit the Appellant’s claim and make the payment as per Section 53 of IBC, 2016.

As per the terms of IBC 2016, for any work done prior to the CIRP period and for amounts pending in relation to the same, the Creditor is required to file its claim – Sree Ganesh Constructions Vs. IVRCL Ltd. Represented by Mr. Suntanu Sinha Liquidator – NCLAT Chennai Read Post »

Scroll to Top