Back
NAJMI WAZIRI, SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
Parveen Kumar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Najmi Waziri, J. (Oral)
The hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).
CM APPL. 33036/2023 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed-off.
W.P.(C) 8754/2023 & CM APPL. 33037/2023 (stay)
3. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by the learned counsel named above for the respondents. At joint request, the petition is taken up for disposal.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that: i) the possession of petitioners' property is to be taken over today by the Court Receiver appointed by the learned CMM, Shahdara, by order dated 22.05.2023, against a loan amount of Rs.28 lacs; ii) an amount of Rs.9.20 lacs has been paid in terms of an understanding with the bank that upon payment of the said amount, the entire outstanding amount will be foreclosed iii) according to the possession notice, only an amount of Rs.12 lacs remains outstanding and iv) their S.A No.209/2023 is still pending for adjudication.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that that an application for interim relief will be filed by him before the DRT concerned. The learned counsel for the respondents submits
The court has the discretion to maintain status quo regarding physical possession pending an application for interim relief, allowing parties to settle matters amicably.
The court prioritized the need for early adjudication of the case and directed the Debt Recovery Tribunal to hear the petitioner's case before any other rights are sought to be created in the mortgag....
The court prioritized the need for speedy disposal of the case and directed the Debt Recovery Tribunal to hear the petitioner's case before any other rights are sought to be created in the mortgaged ....
The court prioritized the need for early adjudication to prevent irreparable prejudice to the petitioner in the context of property rights and auction proceedings.
Courts may direct expedited consideration of urgent applications when physical possession of property is imminent.
The court prioritizes the protection of the petitioner's rights in the mortgaged property and emphasizes the need for speedy disposal of the case to prevent irreparable prejudice.
Contumacious conduct and failure to comply with court conditions can lead to the dismissal of applications and imposition of costs.
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....
The High Court may grant discretionary relief in petitions against interlocutory tribunal orders, even where an alternative appellate remedy exists, when the borrower demonstrates a willingness to co....
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
