A. A. SAYED, MADHAV J. JAMDAR
Prateek Pradeep Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Through Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Madhav J. Jamdar, J.
The Petitioner is the owner of Heritage Bungalow, Mittal Grandeur, Junction of Khatau Road and Captain Prakash Rehe Marg, C.S. No. 85, Colaba Division, Street No. 25, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400030 (hereinafter referred to as “the said property”). The Petitioner is also a co-borrower. The Petitioner, Respondent No. 4 and Respondent No. 5 availed financial assistance of aggregate amount of Rs. 111,15,22,899/- (Rs. One Hundred Eleven Crores Fifteen Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety-Nine) from Respondent No. 2 by five different loans granted on various dates. The said property was mortgaged with Respondent No. 2 as security towards said loan. The Respondent No. 2 sold the said property to Respondent No. 6 by private treaty under Rule 8(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Rules”). The said Rules are made by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-Section 1 and Clause (b) of sub-Section 2 of Section 38 read with sub-Sections 4, 10 and 12 of Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinaf
General Manager Sri. Siddheshwara Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Ikbal
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited v. Union of India
J. Rajiv Subramaniyan v. Pandiyas [(2014) 5 SCC 651]
Kerala Financial Corporation v. Vincent Paul
Lakshmanasami Gounder v. C.I.T., Selvamani
M. Rathinaswami v. State of Tamil Nadu
Mathew Varghese v. M. Amritha Kumar
Naraindas Indurkhya v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd.
State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy
State of Mysore v. S.R. Jayaram
S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rakesh Kohli
State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Shri Trilok Nath Khosa
State of T.N. v. Arooran Sugars Ltd.
Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [(1990) 3 SCC 223]
Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Broach Borough Municipality
St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director
Union of India v. Exide Industries Limited
V.S. Rice & Oil Mills v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal v. State of Bihar(2016) 3 SCC 183
A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar v. Venkatchalam Potti, Authorised Official and Income Tax Officer
Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. v. Union of India
Bhavesh D. Parish v. Union of India
Consumer Action Group v. State of Tamil Nadu
Directorate General of Foreign Trade v. Kanak Exports
Dwarka Prasad Laxmi Narain v. Uttar Pradesh
Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India [(1989) 4 SCC 187]
Court ruled that non-compliance with SARFAESI rules voided sale; observed that the rights of borrowers can be waived through their conduct and failure to assert them timely.
Secured creditors must adhere to proper notice and valuation requirements per the SARFAESI Act, as failure to do so invalidates asset sales.
The auction sale of secured assets was invalid due to violations of statutory procedures, including failure to obtain separate valuations and selling below the reserve price.
Point of Law - Rule 15 of Schedule II Part I of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the first place it will have to be stated that a reading of the said Rule does not in any way conflict with either Section....
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.