SUNITA AGARWAL, ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Manglesh Champaklal Gandhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. letter patent appeal against single judge's order. (Para 1) |
| 2. appellate tribunal's role in review process. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. jurisdiction of drt to condone delay. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. clarifies the role of the drt concerning procedural compliance. (Para 7) |
| 5. compliance with the sarfaesi act procedures. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. provisions under the rdb act regarding procedures. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 7. mandatory compliance with the procedure for recovery. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 8. delay in challenging measures taken by secured creditors. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 9. limitations on challenging earlier creditor measures. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 10. rights of borrowers to challenge creditor actions. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 11. right to redeem property before sale mandatory. (Para 46 , 47) |
| 12. affirms limitation law application to debt recovery actions. (Para 60 , 61 , 62) |
| 13. the appeal dismissed with no merits. (Para 78 , 80) |
JUDGMENT :
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.10.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition remanding the matter to the Debts Recove
Mardia Chemicals Limited and another Vs. Union of India and others [(2004) 4 SCC 311]
Corporation Bank versus Jayshreeben and Ors. [2013(1) GLH 628]
International Asset Reconstruction Co. Of India Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator [(2017) 16 SCC 137]
M/s Transcore Vs. Union of India and another [AIR 2007 SC 712]
Union Bank of India vs. Chairperson
Mahesh Harilal Khamar vs. B.N. Narasimhan [1982 GLH 700]
Karnataka State Financial Corporation vs. N. Narasimahaiah [(2008) 5 SCC 176]
M/s Transcore vs Union Of India [2008 (1) SCC 125]
Corporation Bank vs. Jayshreeben [(2013) 1 GLH 628]
Mardia Chemicals Limited and another Vs. Union of India and others
The Kerala State Electricity Board
Indian Overseas Bank & Anr vs M/s.Ashok Saw Mill [(2009) 8 SCC 366]
Ponnusamy and Anr. vs. The Debt Recovery Tribunal [2009 (1) LW 954]
M/s Transcore Vs. Union of India and another reported at AIR 2007 SC 712
The court affirmed that the DRT can condone delays in applications under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, as per Section 5 of the Limitation Act, allowing borrower's challenges to creditor measures wi....
The DRT has the authority to condone delays in applications under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, applying the Limitation Act provisions.
The DRT must consider the Limitation Act's provisions regarding the condonation of delay in SARFAESI applications, ensuring just consideration of delay reasons.
The jurisdiction of the civil court is excluded in matters related to the classification of loan accounts as NPA under the SARFAESI Act.
Proceedings before Court are not for taking chance by litigants. Litigants must show due respect towards Court proceedings.
The principle of constructive res judicata bars re-litigation of claims that could have been addressed in prior proceedings, establishing finality in judicial decisions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the period of limitation for filing an application to set aside an ex-parte order before the Tribunal shall be 30 days, and there would be no ....
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.