M. NAGAPRASANNA
Y. B. Shamanna, S/o. Late Byanna – Appellant
Versus
Authorized Officer, The UCO Bank Ltd. – Respondent
ORDER :
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question orders dated 08-03-2023 and 15-03-2023 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) in S.A.No.114 of 2023 insofar as it refuses to consider the interim relief sought in the appeal on applications in I.A.No.1 of 2023 and I.A.No.2 of 2023 filed by the petitioner and have sought consideration of the interim relief sought before the Tribunal.
2. Facts in brief, germane are as follows:-
The 2nd petitioner is the borrower and the 1st respondent is the lender. The 2nd petitioner borrows an amount of Rs.1,70,00,000/- on 14-08-2015 on mortgage of the scheduled property owned by his father, petitioner No.1. The loan was regular up to a certain point and became sticky in the year 2018. It is then the Bank sought to initiate proceedings invoking the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘the Act’ for short) in respect of the schedule property by issuing a notice as is required under sub-sections (2) and (
Narandas Karsondas v. S.A. Kamtam
Dwarika Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Allokam Peddabbayya v. Allahabad Bank
Mathew Varghese v. M. Amritha Kumar
Embassy Hotels Private Ltd. v. Gajraj and Company
Arce Polymers Pvt. Ltd. v. Alpine Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
M.D. Frozen Foods Exports Private Limited v. Hero Fincorp Limited
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.