PRATEEK JALAN
Sewa Nand Ravinder Kumar And Company – Appellant
Versus
Union Bank Of India – Respondent
ORDER
The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through hybrid mode [physical and virtual hearing].
CM APPL. 40718/2021 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 12931/2021 & CM APPL. 40717/2021 (for stay)
1. Issue notice. Mr. Rupak Srivastava, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-Union Bank of India ["the Bank"].
2. The petitioners assail orders dated 28.09.2021 and 29.09.2021 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ["CMM"] on the Bank's application under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ["SARFEASI Act"]. By the said orders, the learned CMM appointed a Receiver to take possession of the properties of the petitioners. The order dated 28.09.2021 covers six properties, including five shops and a godown, which are enumerated in paragraph 8 of the order. The order dated 29.09.2021 is in respect of a property bearing No. 83, A Block, Pocket KU, Pitampura, Delhi-110088.
3. The properties were, admittedly, given as security for cash credit facilities taken by the petitioners from the Bank. The petitioners
Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari vs. Antarim Zila Parishad AIR 1969 SC 556
C Bright vs. District Collectorand Others (2021) 2 SCC 392
Harbanslal Sahnia vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 107
United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others (2010) 8 SCC 110
Whirlpool Corpn. vs. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 8 SCC 1
The High Court should insist on exhausting remedies available under the relevant statute before availing remedy under Article 226, and the writ jurisdiction should rarely be exercised, particularly i....
As a result of judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to judicial impropriety to say the least, for the subordinate courts including the High Courts to ignore the settled decisions and....
The court established that compliance with statutory provisions is essential in possession proceedings under the Securitisation Act, and alternative remedies must be exhausted before seeking judicial....
A writ petition cannot be entertained against SARFAESI Act proceedings when an adequate statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal is available.
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.