01/10/2024

The expression “any person” used in Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is of wide implication and the same includes not only the borrower, but also the guarantor or any other person who may be affected by the action taken under Section 13(4) or Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 – Patliputra Concrete Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. – Jharkhand High Court

Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court held that it is evident from the judgment in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon & Ors. (2017) ibclaw.in 81 SC that the expression “any person” used in Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is of wide implication and the same includes not only the borrower, but also the guarantor or any other person who may be affected by the action taken under Section 13(4) or Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Thus, the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) or the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) are duly empowered to entertain the application/appeal filed under Section 17 and 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 respectively including passing of the interim orders and to decide the dispute within a fixed period. It has thus been settled that the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is available to any aggrieved person.

The expression “any person” used in Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is of wide implication and the same includes not only the borrower, but also the guarantor or any other person who may be affected by the action taken under Section 13(4) or Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 – Patliputra Concrete Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. – Jharkhand High Court Read Post »

There is no provision under the RERA Act which calls for the owner of the land to co-sign as a Promoter | An application is deemed to have been registered after lapse of the mandatory period as per Section 5(2) of Real Estate (Regulation and Development), Act, 2016 | Once the project is deemed to have been approved under the deeming provision, it is beyond the jurisdiction of RERA Authority to reject the application – Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. – Allahabad High Court

In this important judgment of division bench, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court clarifies various issues on A. Definition of Promoters under RERA Act, 2016, B. Does JIL needs to be Co-Promoter, C. Can UPRERA impose the condition on the petitioner to get JIL/JAL sign the application as a co-promoter, D. Deemed Approval of Project after expiry of 30 days as per Section 5(2) of RERA, E. Petitioner cannot ask for negative parity on the ground of similarly granted registration.

There is no provision under the RERA Act which calls for the owner of the land to co-sign as a Promoter | An application is deemed to have been registered after lapse of the mandatory period as per Section 5(2) of Real Estate (Regulation and Development), Act, 2016 | Once the project is deemed to have been approved under the deeming provision, it is beyond the jurisdiction of RERA Authority to reject the application – Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. – Allahabad High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top