Back
NAJMI WAZIRI, SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited – Appellant
Versus
Meenu Raisurana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Najmi Waziri, J. (Oral)
The hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).
1. Issue notice. The learned counsel named above accepts the notice on behalf of their respective respondents.
2. At joint request, this petition has been taken up for disposal.
3. This petition seeks the following reliefs:
I. To quash and set aside the order dated 13.05.2022 passed by Ld. DRT-II New Delhi in SA No. 128/2022 titled as "Meenu Raisurana vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited & Ors." and/or
II. Direct the Ld. DRT-III Delhi having additional charge over DRT-II Delhi to take up the Application seeking vacation of stay preferred by the Petitioner Bank in SA No. 128/2022 on the next date of hearing and dispose off the same in a time bound matter;
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks possession of the mortgaged property and submits that under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner is entitled to take possession of the mortgaged property i.e., B-384, 2nd Floor, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, 110065. However, the impugned order passed by the DRT-II on 13.05.2022 has order status quo. Their application for vacation of the interim order has not been h
The court emphasized the importance of expeditious disposal of applications for possession of mortgaged property under the SARFAESI Act, especially in cases involving prolonged delays and substantial....
Res judicata bars re-litigation of SARFAESI notice validity in subsequent proceedings after final prior judgment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right of redemption under Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act can be forfeited if the borrower fails to clear the dues, and the delay in fil....
Failure to comply with necessary conditions for appeal under the SARFAESI Act can render a petition insubstantial, and the enforcement of security interest by the respondent may be justified under th....
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....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
