Shri Justice Subodh Abhyankar

Whether civil suit on the issue of mortgage can only be decided by Civil Court or the same can also be adjudicated by DRT under the provisions of DRT/ SARFASI Act – Murtaza Malik Vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd. – Madhya Pradesh High Court

Hon’ble High Court held that the plaintiffs have also averred in the plaint that the defendant has already initiated proceedings under the Securitizatoin Act for taking possession of the building structure falsely claiming that the superstructure of the building is also mortgaged, but this Court has no hesitation to hold that this is not such an issue which cannot be decided by the DRT and efforts on the part of the plaintiffs to circumvent the DRT proceedings cannot be allowed to succeed, the only purpose of which is to defeat the recovery proceedings initiated under the Securitization Act. This court is also of the firm view that as the DRT deals solely with the bank loan transaction, the subject of mortgage is something that the DRT has an expertise in handling and it cannot be said that the issue of mortgage can be decided by a civil court only.

Whether civil suit on the issue of mortgage can only be decided by Civil Court or the same can also be adjudicated by DRT under the provisions of DRT/ SARFASI Act – Murtaza Malik Vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd. – Madhya Pradesh High Court Read Post »

Section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956 would prevail over the Income Tax Act, 1961 – M/s Beta Nephthol Ltd. Vs. Ref. has been Recd. from BIFR New Delhi – Madhya Pradesh High Court

Hon’ble High Court held that firstly, the provisions of s.529A of the Act of 1956 have come into force on 1985 whereas s.170 of the IT Act has come into force in the year 1961, thus, the subsequent provisions of s.529A of the Act of 1956 would have precedence over the IT Act. Secondly, the Act of 1956 is a special Act which govern the law regarding companies only whereas IT Act is a general Act which percolates in just about every sphere of life and is applicable to all the citizen of India when it comes to payment of Income Tax. Thirdly, it is also found that s.529A and s.530 of the Act of 1956 have already taken into account inter alia the provisions of Income Tax and thus, the harmonious reading of the provisions of the two Acts leads this court to the one and only unescapable conclusion, that s.529A of the Act of 1956 would prevail over the Income Tax Act.

Section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956 would prevail over the Income Tax Act, 1961 – M/s Beta Nephthol Ltd. Vs. Ref. has been Recd. from BIFR New Delhi – Madhya Pradesh High Court Read Post »

Whether an arbitration award can be set at nullity on the ground that the appointment of the Arbitrator itself was in violation of the provisions of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act, 1996, even though the appointment was made prior to 23.10.2015 when the Arbitration and Conciliation(Amendment) Act of 2015 came into force – Dharamdas Tirathdas Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India – Madhya Pradesh High Court

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

Whether an arbitration award can be set at nullity on the ground that the appointment of the Arbitrator itself was in violation of the provisions of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act, 1996, even though the appointment was made prior to 23.10.2015 when the Arbitration and Conciliation(Amendment) Act of 2015 came into force – Dharamdas Tirathdas Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India – Madhya Pradesh High Court Read Post »

Whether experience of self-employed and running a Consultancy and Valuation business is considered for management expertise as provided under Regulation 5(3)(c)(iii)(b) or (c) of Insolvency Professional Regulations, 2016 – Mr. Arvind Kumar Agrawal Vs. Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) – Madhya Pradesh High Court

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.11.2021, passed by Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), whereby the petitioner’s application for grant of Certificate of Registration as an Insolvency Professional (IP) under Regulation 7 of the Insolvency Professional Regulations, 2016 has been rejected by the Whole Time Member of IBBI on the ground that the petitioner is self-employed and is running a Consultancy and Valuation business and does not have the managerial experience as a salaried employee.

Whether experience of self-employed and running a Consultancy and Valuation business is considered for management expertise as provided under Regulation 5(3)(c)(iii)(b) or (c) of Insolvency Professional Regulations, 2016 – Mr. Arvind Kumar Agrawal Vs. Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) – Madhya Pradesh High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top