Search Results for "Banking, Finance & Insolvency News | Supremetoday AI"

Dissenting financial creditors are entitled to receive at least the liquidation value of their security interest under the amended Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

Dissenting financial creditors are entitled to receive at least the liquidation value of their security interest under the amended Section 30(2)(b)(ii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

#InsolvencyLaw #FinancialCreditors #LegalJudgment #SupremeCourtSupremeCourt

Court Rules on Dissenting Financial Creditors' Rights in Insolvency CasesBackgroundIn a significant ruling, the Supreme Court addressed the rights of dissenting financial creditors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The case involved DBS Bank Limited Singapore, which had extended...

Court Decision 03 Jan 2024
Borrower Not Entitled to Adjust Auction Proceeds Against Pre-Deposit Under SARFAESI Act: Supreme Court

Borrower Not Entitled to Adjust Auction Proceeds Against Pre-Deposit Under SARFAESI Act: Supreme Court

#SARFAESIAct #DebtRecovery #LegalJudgment #SupremeCourtSupremeCourt

Supreme Court Ruling on Pre-Deposit Requirements Under SARFAESI ActOverview of the JudgmentIn a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India addressed the interpretation of Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002...

Case Law 05 Jan 2023
The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) or District Magistrate (DM) can appoint an advocate as an officer subordinate to them under Section 14(1A) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, to assist in taking possession of secured assets.

The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) or District Magistrate (DM) can appoint an advocate as an officer subordinate to them under Section 14(1A) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, to assist in taking possession of secured assets.

#SARFAESI #LegalNews #AssetRecovery #SupremeCourtSupremeCourt

Court Rules on Appointment of Advocates in Asset Recovery CasesBackgroundIn a significant ruling, the Supreme Court addressed the contentious issue of whether Chief Metropolitan Magistrates (CMM) or District Magistrates (DM) can appoint advocates to assist in taking possession of secured asse...

Court Decision 25 Feb 2022
The High Court erred in entertaining writ petitions against a private Assets Reconstruction Company under Article 226 of the Constitution, as the borrowers had an alternative remedy under the SARFAESI Act.

The High Court erred in entertaining writ petitions against a private Assets Reconstruction Company under Article 226 of the Constitution, as the borrowers had an alternative remedy under the SARFAESI Act.

#SARFAESIAct #DebtRecovery #LegalJudgment #SupremeCourtSupremeCourt

High Court's Interim Orders Overturned in Debt Recovery CaseBackgroundIn a significant ruling, the Supreme Court addressed the appeals filed by Phoenix ARC Private Limited against the interim orders of the Karnataka High Court. The case involved Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and St. Ann's Educa...

Court Decision 12 Jan 2022
Supreme Court Remands Case: Proper Assessment of Resolution Professional's Fees Under IBC Required

Supreme Court Remands Case: Proper Assessment of Resolution Professional's Fees Under IBC Required

#IBC #InsolvencyLaw #SupremeCourt #SupremeCourtSupremeCourt

Supreme Court Remands Case Regarding Resolution Professional's Fees Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy CodeThe Supreme Court of India recently handed down a judgment in an appeal concerning the payment of fees and expenses incurred by a Resolution Professional (RP) during a Corporate Insolve...

Case Law 05 Jan 2022
The court ruled that the insurance company cannot repudiate a claim based on a negative balance on the date of loss if it accepted premium for enhancement of the sum insured after the loss occurred, thereby treating the policy as valid.

The court ruled that the insurance company cannot repudiate a claim based on a negative balance on the date of loss if it accepted premium for enhancement of the sum insured after the loss occurred, thereby treating the policy as valid.

#InsuranceLaw #MarineInsurance #ConsumerRights #ConsumerState

CourtRulesin Favor of Textile Manufacturer in Marine Insurance Claim DisputeBackgroundIn a significant ruling, the Supreme Court addressed a long-standing dispute between a textile manufacturer and an insurance company regarding a marine cargo insurance claim. The appellant, a manufacturer of...

Court Decision 20 Dec 2012
SupremeToday Landscape Ad
SupremeToday Portrait Ad

Legal Issues on Supreme Today AI

back ground Icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top