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

RAJ MANI CHAUHAN
Pan India Motors – Appellant
Versus
A. R. C. I. Ltd. – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants: Mr. Fereshte Sethna, Mr. Akshay Vani and Mr. Robin Quadros, i/b
M/s. M.L.S. Vani and Associates, Advocates
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Tushad Cooper, Mr. Bhalchandra R. Palav, i/b M/s. Amarchand & Mangaldas and Suresh A. Shroff & Co., Advocates
For the Respondent No.4:Mr. Sanjay Jain, Mrs. V.R. Hombalkar, i/b M/s. Dhruve Liladhar & Co., Advocates
For the Respondent No.11:Mr. Rafique Peermohideen, Mr. Madhur Rai, i/b M/s. S.K. Srivastava & Co., Advocates
For the Intervener (DCM Daewoo Employee Union):Mr. B.S. Nagar and Ms. Poonam Utekar, i/b M/s. Global Law Office, Advocates
For the Official Liquidator, Delhi High Court:Mr. S.C. Sharma, Advocate

JUDGMENT

Raj Mani Chauhan, Chairperson—This Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred as “RDDBFI Act”) has been directed by appellant against the judgment and order dated 30th January, 2013 passed by Mr. K.J. Paratwar, the then learned Presiding Officer (Learned P.O.), Debts Recovery Tribunal No. II (DRT), Mumbai in Appeal No. 39/2012 (Cross links Finlease Pvt. Ltd. (Pan India Motors Pvt. Ltd.) v. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. (ARCIL), whereby the learned Presiding Officer has dismissed the Appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 22nd November, 2012 passed by the Recovery Officer on the Miscellaneous applications (M.A.) (Ex. Nos. 146,159,194,196 and 220) in Recovery Proceeding (RP.) No. 01/2012, whereby the Recovery Officer allowed the Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) (Ex. 194) filed by respondent No. 1 and set aside the sale in favour of respondent No. 11, Crosslinks Finlease Pvt. and its nominee, the appellant, Pan India Motors Pvt. Ltd. The Recovery Officer has also allowed the other prayers sought for by respondent No.1 in the aforesaid M.A.

2. The relevant fact






















































































































































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