Mr. Justice D. Krishnakumar

The right of redemption under Section 13(8) of SARFAESI is always available till the date of sale – S.Kasthuri Vs. The Authorised Officer, Canara Bank – Madras High Court

Hon’ble High Court observed that there is no justification or reason on the part of the writ petitioner for the prolonged delay in taking necessary steps to redeem her house property. That apart, the writ petitioner failed to comply with the provisions of Section 13 (8) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The right of redemption was always available to the writ petitioner till the date of sale. Having slept over, her right of redemption for more than 12 years, that is, from 29.05.2009 the date of symbolic possession notice under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, now the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court after her right stand extinguished by the execution of the sale deed in favour of the third respondent on 09.01.2020. In view of the aforesaid decisions and for the reasons mentioned supra, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Therefore, this writ petition stands dismissed.

The right of redemption under Section 13(8) of SARFAESI is always available till the date of sale – S.Kasthuri Vs. The Authorised Officer, Canara Bank – Madras High Court Read Post »

Without exhausting the remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked – Kayalvizhi Vs. The Authorized Officer, Canara Bank Ltd. – Madras High Court

Hon’ble High Court held that we are of the view that without exhausting the remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the petitioner cannot invoke the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, for appropriate remedy.

Without exhausting the remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked – Kayalvizhi Vs. The Authorized Officer, Canara Bank Ltd. – Madras High Court Read Post »

Liability arising out of an arbitral award or a court decree would be categorised as either financial or operational debt depending on the nature of the underlying claim which stands crystallised through the arbitral or court proceedings- Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. Vs. Navrang Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. Through its Liquidator Mr. Sachin Dinkar Bhattbhatt – Madras High Court

The appellant, as per Section 9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is a Non Banking Finance Company and admittedly an unsecured financial creditor. As per the decisions laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited supra and Section 53 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the financial debts owed to unsecured creditors have to be distributed by the liquidator as per the preference set out under Section 53(1) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 i.e after distributing the workmen dues, wages and unpaid dues to the employees. Learned Single Judge in our view, has carefully considered the statutory priorities of distribution of assets as prescribed under Section 53(1) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and finally has held that monies withdrawn would have to be made available for distribution amongst the creditors qua M/s Navarang Road lines Private Limited/respondent herein in accordance with Section 53 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in the pending CIRP before the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench.

Liability arising out of an arbitral award or a court decree would be categorised as either financial or operational debt depending on the nature of the underlying claim which stands crystallised through the arbitral or court proceedings- Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. Vs. Navrang Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. Through its Liquidator Mr. Sachin Dinkar Bhattbhatt – Madras High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top