D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, ANOOP V.MOHTA
Vinay Container Services Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
AXIS BANK, through its Authorised Officer – Respondent
Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, J.
These proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arise out of an order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai on 29 October 2010. By the order of the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioners have been directed to comply with the condition of pre-deposit under Section 18(1) of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (“the Act”) in an Appeal arising out of an interlocutory direction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The main issue which has been canvassed before the Court is whether the requirement of pre-deposit under Section 18(1) of the Act would be attracted where the order that is challenged in an Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal is not a final order under Section 17, but an interlocutory order.
2. The facts that are necessary to appreciate the background of the petition are that the first petitioner had availed of credit facilities from the respondent in 2008. The second and the third petitioners are guarantors and had created mortgages in favour of the Bank. The accounts had become irregular and were treated as non-performing assets in the book
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.