RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
SUNAYANA MALHOTRA – Appellant
Versus
ICICI BANK – Respondent
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. Application of the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint for the reason of the relief claimed in the suit being barred by Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (DRT Act) r/w Section 34 of the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Securitization Act) is for consideration.
2. The plaintiffs have instituted the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. They have pleaded that they along with others had promoted M/s Sudarshan Consolidated Limited since known as M/s Willy Agrotech Limited; that the said company had obtained certain credit limits from the defendant and had executed the loan documents in favour of the defendant bank; that the plaintiffs had also executed personal guarantees in favour of the defendant; that the plaintiffs have sold their shareholding in the company and have resigned from the Board of Directors of the company and are left with no concern with the company; that the defendant had got issued notice dated 31st December, 2008 claiming the plaintiffs to be jointly and severally l
Indian Bank v. A.B.S. Marine Products Pvt. Ltd. AIR 2006 SC 1899
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.