Back
NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Dharmendra Popatlal Patel – Appellant
Versus
IDFC First Bank Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Nikhil S. Kariel, J.
1. Rule. Learned advocates for the respective parties waive service of rule on behalf of the respective respondents. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been taken for final hearing.
1.1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mahesh Bhavsar on behalf of the petitioners, learned advocate Ms. Shivani Rajpurohit appearing with learned advocate Mr. Rahul Barot on behalf of respondent no.1 – Bank, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Jay Trivedi on behalf of respondent no.2 and learned advocate Mr. Bhagirath Patel on behalf of respondent no.3.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges an order dated 06.01.2023 passed by learned Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in Appeal No. 08/2022 whereby an order of the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal dated 10.01.2022 is quashed and set aside. It would appear that by way of order dated 10.01.2022, the learned DRT has inter alia set aside the sale by private treaty dated 28.06.2021 including the sale certificate of the same date issued by respondent no.1– Bank in favour of respondent no.3 herein and whereas, the said order had been set aside by the learned DRAT more particularly restoring the sale by
Secured creditors must adhere to proper notice and valuation requirements per the SARFAESI Act, as failure to do so invalidates asset sales.
Mandatory compliance with procedural requirements under the SARFAESI Act is essential; failure to adhere prejudices borrowers' rights and invalidates auction proceedings.
Point of Law - Rule 15 of Schedule II Part I of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the first place it will have to be stated that a reading of the said Rule does not in any way conflict with either Section....
The auction sale of secured assets was invalid due to violations of statutory procedures, including failure to obtain separate valuations and selling below the reserve price.
(1) Auction sale of secured asset – Unless and until a clear 30 days' notice is given to borrower, no sale or transfer can be resorted to by a secured creditor. Secured creditor cannot effect sale or....
Order of the Tribunal it is not discernible as to whether any application for condonation of delay was filed or how the Tribunal dealt with the belated approach of the borrowers.
It is mandatory for the Secured Creditor/Bank to effect personal service of the sale notice, apart from publication as provided under Rule 8 & 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
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
