Security Interest Enforcement Rules 2002 - Judgment Search Results

Ms. Sea Poly Plast India Pvt. Ltd. and ors Vs. Union of India and ors

Court: Mumbai

the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 2. A notice under Section 13 (2) 2 wp1956 validity of Rule 8 (5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. These Rules have been framed by the conferred by the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 2. A notice under Section before the reserved price is fixed, the scheme under the Rules, when read in its entirety, would indicate that sufficient safeguards is excluded from Rule 8 (5) of the Rules of 2002 or has no voice at the time when the valuation

G. Manohar Vs. Indian Bank (Adb), Nagiri Branch

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2009(4)ALT770

the SARFAESI Act was enacted for quick enforcement of the security and it deals with the enforcement of the rights vested Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002) (for short ' the SARFAESI for reconstruction of financial assets, and it also provides for enforcement of security interest and for matters connected therewith. When the other laws not barred:The provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002) (for short ' the SARFAESI Act') in respect of a

V. Sambandan Vs. The Punjab National Bank Rep. by its Chairman cum Man ...

Court: Chennai

the time schedule as extended by the authorized officer, the security deposit of Rs.3,30,000/- paid by the appellant as part payment or cause the purchaser to issue notices to the persons interested in or entitled to the money deposited with him and Institution) under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and in exercise of powers Manager/respondent No.2, has denied the contention of the appellant that Rules 8 and 9 of SARFAESI Rules were not complied with. a place, where specific provisions are made in SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the Rules made thereunder, for sale of assets, secured

P. Murugan Vs. The Registrar, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and Ot ...

Court: Chennai

the SARFAESI Act, 2002", employed in Rule 13(2)(1)(a) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and the expression "any other application" SARFAESI Act, 2002, read with rule 13(2)(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and represent the appeal papers. On such in sub-Section (2) of Section 13 of the Act. "13. Enforcement of security interest:- (4) In case the borrower fails to SARFAESI Act, 2002 and engrafted in Rule 13(2)(1)(e) of the Rules. The expression "application filed under sub-Section (1) of Section 17 heading as, "Appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002". Relief sought for in Column No.VI, of the appeal, is

Central Bank of India Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: [2010]153CompCas497(SC); JT2009(3)SC216; 2009(3)SCALE451; (2009)4SCC94; (2009)12VatReporter137; (2009)21VST505(SC); JT2009(1)SC216

8 has greater powers than even a Court Receiver as security interest in the property is already created in favour of has greater powers than even a Court Receiver as security interest in the property is already created in favour of the and other secured creditors for recovery of their dues or enforcement of security interest, as the case may be. The Court Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962 have been made applicable to the recovery proceedings. Section would be erroneous.Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 ('2002 Rules') deals with the stage anterior to the issuance

Transcore Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2007SC712; 2007(1)ALD109(SC); I(2007)BC33(SC); [2007]135CompCas1(SC); (2007)1CompLJ1(SC); 2006(5)CTC753; 135(2006)DLT151(SC); (2007)1MLJ929(SC); 2006(12)SCALE585; (2008)

the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 shall be mutatis mutandis as provided for concerned (mortgages) and securities where the creditor obtains neither an interest in nor possession of the property but the property is to enable the bank/ FI to take appropriate steps for enforcement of security under the NPA Act. Learned Counsel submitted that, in the form given in Appendix V to the 2002 Rules. Rule 9(9) states that the authorised officer shall deliver the in the scheme of the NPA Act read with the 2002 Rules. (iii) On Point No. 3, on question of court

Somnath Manocha Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and ors.

Court: Delhi

13 (4) SARFAESI Act read with Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Thereafter, the present writ petition was the entire outstanding liability amounting to Rs. 3,84,59,807/- together with interest with effect from 21st November 2004 as well as costs (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’) and consequent possession Act read with Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Thereafter, the present writ petition was filed.6. On 26th SARFAESI Act itself came into force only on 18th December 2002, the legislative intent was that even the sum owned to

industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. and Others Vs. the Deputy Co ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

the level of margin and to maintain value of the security at a level is the other obligation of the debtor. basis alone the NPA Act seeks to enforce the security interest by non-adjudicatory process. Essentially, the NPA Act deals with the 125 : 2007 (3) SCJ 201 the non-adjudicatory process for enforcement of security interest by the banks or financial institutions is they also issued notice of intended sale on 10.10.2008 under Rules 6(2) and 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002. and the Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002), be the first charge on the property of the assessee

Blue Coast Hotels Limited Vs. IFCI Limited

Court: Mumbai

force. It is also made clear that for enforcement of security interest, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 69 or Section 69A on record as under: "i) ITC has all along been interested in purchasing the Hotel property. ii) ITC was all along June 2013, also served notice under Rule 8(6) of the Enforcement Rules to BCHL, communicating the fact that possession of the as nearly as possible in Appendix IV to the 2002 Rules. That notice is required to be affixed on the property. in the scheme of the NPA Act read with the 2002 Rules." 40. The Supreme Court in Mathew Verghese (supra) examined

A.Varalakshmi. Vs. the Chief Manager and ors.

Court: Chennai

III of the SARFAESI Act deals with the enforcement of security interest. In the event any borrower, who is under a by the second respondent-purchaser shall be refunded with 12 percent interest per annum from the date of deposit till the date conferred under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the rules prepared as nearly as possible in Appendix IV to the Rules, to the borrower and by affixing the possession notice on the procedure as contemplated under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, has neither been followed nor been attempted to be followed.Accordingly,