Court : Mumbai
Anoop V. Mohta, J. Index Sr.No.ContentsPage No.1Judgment Title.12Events-9 The Petitioner-Borrower-Blue Coast Hotels Limited (BCHL)'s case.9IFCI-Respondent No.1's case.12ITC Limited-the Purchaser's case.173High Court Proceedings.234Relevant provisions of SARFAESI Act.25 The Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002.36 Transfer of Property Act, 1882.445The submissions and Judgments by BCHL in WP No.222 of 2015.486Events and submissions of BCHL in Writ Petition No.1150 of 2015 referring to Section 14 Application.517Submissions and Judgments in Writ Petition No.2486 of 2015, to set aside the auction and the sale.578Judgments in opposition, and in additional in above Writ Petition No.2486 of 2015 by ITC.599Basic submissions of IFCI/ITC and supporting Judgments.59 COMMON REASONS 10Scheme and object of the Act.6511BCHL prayers and reliefs in respective petitions revolving around the property (Park Hyatt Hotel).7712 Description of the Immovable Properties including of Agriculture and moveable ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
WP No.1246 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE TARUN MONDAL & ORS.VERSUS AXIS BANK LIMITED & ORS.BEFORE: The Honble Justice DEBANGSU BASAK Dated, the 23rd December, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Joy Saha, Adv.Ms.Runi Chakraborty, Adv.For the PetitioneRs.Mr.V.Raja Rao, Adv.Ms.A.Rao, Adv.For the respondent no.3. The Court:- Workers of the respondent no.3 has assailed an order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The order of the District Magistrate impugned is dated September 24, 2014. By such order, the District Magistrate has allowed police assistance to a secured creditor to enforce a security interest under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Mr.Joy Saha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that, the District Magistrate did not take into account the parameters laid down under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in deciding the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(4)MPHT472
ORDERS.C. Sharma, J. 1. Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy involved in this batch of writ petition they were heard analogously together and disposed of by this singular order. For the sake of convenience the facts in Writ Petition No. 408/2009 are exposited herein.2. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the action of the respondent-Bank in issuing notice under Section 13(2) under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner-Company has availed financial assistance from the respondent-Bank and as the account became irregular a notice was issued on 2-9-2008 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 directing him to discharge his full liability by depositing Rs. 10,14,811/-. The petitioner has further stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. A Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 25th August 2015 expressed an opinion that the following questions should be decided by a larger Bench of this Court. The said three questions read thus: (i) Whether a debenture trustee suing on behalf of the debenture-holder for recovery of sums payable to the debenture-holder can file a suit on the original side of this Court since suit is for recovery of the debt? (ii) Whether such proceedings can be initiated by the debenture-trustee before the Debt Recovery Tribunal? (iii) Whether the judgment in the case of Krishna Filaments (supra) would be applicable to the facts of the present case and whether there is any difference of opinion between two judgments which are delivered by two Division Benches of this Court? 2. The Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice by order dated 6th October 2015 directed that the present Full Bench be constituted to decide the aforesaid questions. 3. Though Larger Bench cannot decide the factual controversy, for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(6)ALLMR887; 2008(2)BomCR860; 2007(6)MhLj712
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the action of the respondent banks under the provisions of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Securitisation Act') on merits, the applicability of the said Act to co-operative banks including those constituted under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the MCS Act) and the constitutional validity of the said Act.2. There is little, if anything, to be said in favour of the petitioners on merits. They are debtors of the respondent co-operative banks and, prima-facie atleast, there appears to be no defence to the claim of the respondent banks on merits. The petitioners have however challenged the Constitutional validity of the Securitisation Act. In Mardia Chemicals Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 2004(2) M.L.J. (SC) 1090 the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Securitisation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2008Ker137
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The point that arises for decision in these Writ Appeals is whether the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Securitisation Act) are applicable to District Co-operative Banks and Urban Banks and whether those Banks can invoke those provisions to take over and sell the assets of the loanees, given by way of security. Writ Appeal No. 2070/2007 is treated as the main case.W.A. No. 2070 of 20072. The appellants 1 and 2, who are husband and wife, availed a loan of Rs. 5 lakhs from the Kottayam District Co-operative Bank. The third appellant, who is the mother of the first appellant, availed another loan of Rs. 5 lakhs from the said Bank. Landed Property, having an extent of 1.052 hectares, belonging to the first appellant was given as security for the said loans. The loans were availed in October 2004 and as per the loan agreement, the repayment was to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2007(2)WLN464
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. Heard.2. The present writ petition is filed against the act of the Bank whereby the Bank has resorted to recovery of the secured interest against a person who says that he is the guarantor of the principal borrower.3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner being a guarantor, it is not available for the Bank to proceed against the assets of the guarantor without exhausting its right, liability and claim against the principal borrower.4. Learned Counsel for the respondent per contra submits that in the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2002'), the definition of 'borrower' is provided in Section 2(f) of the Act of 2002 which is quoted herein below:'borrower' means any person who has been granted financial assistance by any bank or financial institution or who has given any guarantee or created any mortgage or pledge as security for the financial assis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2013)1SCC1
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.1. We are, in these appeals, primarily concerned with the powers of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (for short 'SEBI') under Section 55A(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 to administer various provisions relating to issue and transfer of securities to the public by listed companies or companies which intend to get their securities listed on any recognized stock exchange in India and also the question whether Optionally Fully Convertible Debentures (for short 'OFCDs') offered by the appellants should have been listed on any recognized stock exchange in India, being Public Issue under Section 73 read with Section 60B and allied provisions of the Companies Act and whether they had violated the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Disclosure and Investor Protection) Guidelines, 2000 [for short 'DIP Guidelines'] and various regulations of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(4)ALT770
ORDERGhulam Mohammed, J.1. The question that arises for determination in this writ petition relates to action of the respondent-bank in initiating proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002) (for short ' the SARFAESI Act') in respect of a loan availed by the father of the petitioner.2. The facts stated are that the father of the petitioner has started the business under the name and style of M/s. Srinivasa Borewells as a Proprietor and secured loan of Rs. 2,16,000/- by mortgage of the property from the respondent-Bank on 13-6-1981 and purchased a Bore-Well Rig. When he committed default in payment of instalments, the respondent bank filed O.S. No. 5 of 1992 before the court of the Subordinate Judge, Puttur for recovery of an amount of Rs. 7,75,326/- by sale of mortgaged property. In the said suit father and mother of the petitioner were made as defendants 2 and 3. The said suit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR2008Delhi51; 2007(99)DRJ444
Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. In these appeals, the order dated 22nd August, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein is under challenge. The issue raised in these appeals being similar, we propose to dispose of these appeals by this common judgment and order.2. The issue that was raised before the learned Single Judge and also before this Court is with regard to exact and intended meaning of the word 'borrower' as defined under Section 2(f) read with Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002( hereinafter called 'the Act'). By referring to the aforesaid provisions of the Act it was submitted by the counsel appearing for the appellants that the definition of the word 'borrower' and the meaning given thereto would not and cannot extend to include legal representatives of the original borrower inasmuch as the said expression relates only to the person who...
Tag this Judgment!