Reliance Life Services Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. – Gujarat High Court
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here […]
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here […]
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Suresh Chhajuram Singal Vs. Bank of Maharastra – Gujarat High Court Read Post »
Hon’ble High Court referred Reliable Polyesters Private Ltd. vs. Authorized Officer Bank of Baroda and held that the Division Bench has held, more particularly relatable to the facts of the present case, that the word “amount of debt due from him, as claimed by the secured creditor” as found in the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the SARFEASI Act would clearly indicate that the debt would be at the stage of pre-determination of the application or pre-adjudication of the dispute and thus necessarily relate back to the claim made by the secured creditor a notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFEASI Act. The Division Bench has explained the aspect further by observing that if the legislature had restricted the words in the proviso only as “the amount of debt due from the borrower” without including the words “as claimed by the secured creditor” then the position would have been altogether different, but that is not the case. The Division Bench had further observed that intent as observed above is discernible from the later portion of the said proviso “or determined by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, whichever is less”. Thus it would mean that the amount which would be the threshold amount for determining the amount of pre-deposit would be the amount as claimed by the secured creditor from the borrower before the amount is finally determined or adjudicated or in case the issue is finally adjudicated then it would be the amount before predetermination or the amount as determined by the DRT, whichever is less. Thus from the observations of the Division Bench there cannot be any doubt that the amount of debt due would have to be relate back to the amount claimed by the secured creditor in notice under Section 13(2), as in the present case, or the amount finally determined by the DRT, whichever would be less.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
OL of M/s Printpack Industries Ltd. (In Liqn) Vs. Bank of Baroda – Gujarat High Court Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here