Mr. Kumaravel Varadhara Vs. The Authorized Officer / Chief Manager, Canara Bank – Madras High Court
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to […]
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to […]
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
A.Mani Vs. The District Collector, Chennai District and Anr. – Madras High Court Read Post »
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.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
Mrs. A.Arockiarani Vs. The Reserve Bank of India – Madras High Court Read Post »
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.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
T.Sankarasubramaniyam Vs. The Debts Recovery Tribunal – Madras High Court Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
A.Manoharan Vs. The Authorised Officer, Canara Bank – Madras High Court Read Post »
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.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to
Central Bank of India Vs. Gomathiammal – Madras High Court Read Post »