SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Kar) 575

ASHOK B.HINCHIGERI, V.GOPALA GOWDA
KRISHNA KEDARNATH – Appellant
Versus
SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY – Respondent


Advocates:
H.SUBRAHMANYA JOIS, K.L.ASHOK

V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ,, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals are filed against the orders dated 10-1-2005 passed by the Trial Court on LA. No. II filed by the UCO Bank under order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC rejecting the plaints holding that the suits are barred under clause (d ). The rejection of plaints amounts to decrees and therefore appeals are filed.

( 2 ) THE facts and question of law involved in both the appeals are common and hence they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

( 3 ) THE brief facts leading to these appeals are that, UCO Bank has given loan by mortgaging some properties. Since default was committed by the borrowers in the matter of repayment, the Bank approached the debt Recovery Tribunal and steps had been taken to sell the mortgaged properties in public auction. At that juncture, the plaintiffs filed the suits for partition of the joint family properties, which also includes the properties mortgaged to the Bank, and obtained status quo order. In those circumstances, the Bank filed I. A. No. II under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of the CPC requesting to reject the plaints on the ground that suits are barred under Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstructi









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today 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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top