SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Ker) 208

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Bank of India – Appellant
Versus
Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner – Respondent


Judgment :-

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

The petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the "bank", is a banking company governed by the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. Respondents 2 to 5 are its debtors, who have executed security documents creating equitable mortgages over immovable properties, in favour of the Bank.

2. The debt that respondents 2 to 5 owes to the bank is a "security debt" as defined under S.2(ze) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Industrial Act, 2002, hereinafter referred to as the "SARFAESI Act." The bank is thus a "secured creditor as defined in S.2(zd) having a "Security interest", as defined in S.2(zf), over the mortgaged property, which is a "security asset" in terms of S.2(zc) of the SARFAESI Act.

3. The second respondent going by its activities, is an establishment covered under S.1(3)(b) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as "EPF Act" and respondents 3 to 5, being its Managing Director/Director, are "employers" in relation to the said establishment, as defined in S.2(e) of the EPF Act. The said establishme


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top