Mr. Justice S.S. Sundar

Can insolvency application be filed in a case where the default continued after the period of Section 10A? – Dharamshi K. Patel and Anr. Vs. Indian Bank and Ors. – Madras High Court

/ 15 minutes of reading

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here […]

Can insolvency application be filed in a case where the default continued after the period of Section 10A? – Dharamshi K. Patel and Anr. Vs. Indian Bank and Ors. – Madras High Court Read Post »

While exercising the powers under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Judicial Authority has no power to appoint an Arbitrator and the appointment shall be made only in terms of Section 11 – Mrs. M. Ranjani and Anr. Vs. Mrs. R. Usha Rani and Ors. – Madras High Court

/ 12 minutes of reading

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here

While exercising the powers under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Judicial Authority has no power to appoint an Arbitrator and the appointment shall be made only in terms of Section 11 – Mrs. M. Ranjani and Anr. Vs. Mrs. R. Usha Rani and Ors. – Madras High Court Read Post »

Once a Bank exercises its power of selling the property under SARFAESI Act, 2002, the attachments made by the other parties were rendered otiose – M/s. Siva Automotive Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Sub Registrar, Othakadai Sub Registrar Office – Madras High Court

/ 8 minutes of reading

In this case, upon producing sale certificate for registration before Registrar, the same was declined on the ground that in respect of the property purchased, there are orders of attachment passed by the Commissioner of CGST/Central Excise.
Hon’ble High Court held that:
(i) There is a mortgage executed in favour of the bank. Therefore, the bank being the secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act and the security interest being duly registered, by virtue of Section 26E of SARFAESI Act, 2002, it is only the claim of the bank which has priority.
(ii) The attachment of the commissioner of CGST and Central Excise as well as the attachment under the arbitration award will stand valid if only any money which is left over after the satisfaction of the entire loan due to the fifth respondent bank.
(iii) Once the bank exercises its power of selling the property through the Authorized Officer, the attachments made by the other respondents were rendered otiose. Thereafter, the only right of the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise and M/s.Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited was to claim their dues if any surplus money is left with the Authorized Officer under the SARFAESI Act.

Once a Bank exercises its power of selling the property under SARFAESI Act, 2002, the attachments made by the other parties were rendered otiose – M/s. Siva Automotive Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Sub Registrar, Othakadai Sub Registrar Office – Madras High Court Read Post »

Whether a Bank can initiate proceedings u/s 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 where sale notice has been stayed by DRT – P. Pandidurai Vs. The City Union Bank Ltd. – Madras High Court

/ 11 minutes of reading

In this case, Borrower have filed an application before DRT challenging the sale notice and obtained an order of interim stay. In the meanwhile, Bank filed an application before the CJM under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and secured order.
A division bench of the Hon’ble Madras High Court held that:
(i) Object of Section 14 of the Act appears to be to protect the interest of the bank in realising the money by bringing the property for sale. Therefore, this Court is of the view that when the sale is stayed, it is not necessary that the bank should also proceed under Section 14 of the Act.
(ii) a borrower cannot be harassed by multiple proceedings. Though Section 14 of the Act, enables the bank to initiate proceedings and there is no statutory bar to initiate action under Section 14 of the Act, applying the equitable principles, this Court is of the view that the bank can wait or seek permission to initiate further proceedings under Section 14 of the Act. Without any notice or an indication to the Borrower, the bank chose to initiate proceedings under Section 14 of the Act.

Whether a Bank can initiate proceedings u/s 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 where sale notice has been stayed by DRT – P. Pandidurai Vs. The City Union Bank Ltd. – Madras High Court Read Post »

Whether ARC’s possession/right as an assignee of mortgages created by borrower in favour of several Banks, will enable them to challenge the proceedings initiated by Government for resumption of land by exercising their power under Section 44A of the Land Acquisition Act – M/s. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. Vs. M/s. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. – Madras High Court

/ 43 minutes of reading

Hon’ble High Court held that even as per the agreement, the Government reserved its right to resume the land and therefore, this Court, by considering the issue from any angle, is unable to visualise a situation by which the order of resumption can be held to be inappropriate or invalid. In view of the admitted position that the property has now been taken possession of by the petitioner, by exercising its right under SARFAESI Act and the property is not the property of M/s. SPIC Petro Chemicals Ltd. and the mortgage created by M/s. SPIC Petro Chemicals Ltd. is prohibited and declared to be void on the admitted facts, this Court is of the opinion that the order of resumption passed by the Government by exercising its powers under Sub-Section (2) of Section 44-A, is unavoidable. In the complex situation, this Court is of the view that reasonable opportunity, as contemplated by the proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 44-A, will be only an empty or useless formality. The mortgage is void as against the Government. It is true on a construction of Section 44-A, this Court may hold that it is not imperative for the Government to declare every transfer without permission from Government as void.

Whether ARC’s possession/right as an assignee of mortgages created by borrower in favour of several Banks, will enable them to challenge the proceedings initiated by Government for resumption of land by exercising their power under Section 44A of the Land Acquisition Act – M/s. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. Vs. M/s. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. – Madras High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top