Oswal Spinning And Weaving Mills Limited And Others vs UCO Bank And Another

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 Supreme(P&H) 3489

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, AVNEESH JHINGAN
Oswal Spinning And Weaving Mills Limited And Others – Appellant
Versus
UCO Bank And Another – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
Aalok Jagga, Adv., Amit Jhanji, Adv., Munish Jolly, Adv., Rajinder S Rana, Adv., Arav Gupta, Adv., Dishant D Tuteja, Adv., Ashish Verma, Adv., Pankaj Gupta, Adv., Praveen Chauhan, Adv., Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Onkar Rai, Adv., Bakshish Singh, Adv., Salil Bali, Adv., Amit Aggarwal, Adv., Sunil Chadha, Adv., Sorabh Sharma, Adv., Manat Kumar Arya, Adv., Rajat Mor, Adv., Barjinder Singh, Adv., Tegjeet Singh, Adv., Atul Sharma, Adv., Rajesh K Kataria, Adv., Arun Gupta, Adv., Sanjeev Sharma, Adv., Shekhar Verma, Adv., Manreet Kaur, Adv., Sanjeev K Arora, Adv., Vikas Kumar, Adv., Harsh Chopra, Adv., P.S. Sobti, Adv., C.S. Pasricha, Adv., Vikas Mohan Gupta, Adv., Kamal Satija, Adv., Daisy Sharma, Adv., I.P. Singh, Adv., Gaurav Goel, Adv., Anil Kumar Garg, Adv., J.S. Mann, Adv., Harpreet Kaur, Adv., Shobit Phutela, Adv., Shiv Kumar, Adv., Geeta Sharma, Adv., D.K. Singal, Adv., Sanjeev K Aggarwal, Adv., Sandeep Suri, Adv., Kriti Sharma, Adv., Vijay Parkash, Adv., Nonish Kumar, Adv.

JUDGMENT

Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - This order shall dispose of a bunch of 23 petitions bearing CWP Nos.21519, 7790, 9017, 18798, 19341, 2134, 2338, 23122, 23057, 26055, 26487, 17893, 18246, 27310, 3689, 4335, 4710, 6118, 13848 and 16889 of 2018, 27382, 26380 and 28230 of 2017, as according to the learned counsel for the parties, the issue involved in all these petitions is identical. However, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 21519 of 2018.

2. Cwp No. 21519 of 2018 has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the impugned order dated 15.01.2018, Annexure P.6, passed by respondent No.2-Debt Recovery Tribunal-III (in short, "the DRT") in SA No. 466 of 2017 vide which the Securitisation application (SA) filed by them under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, "the 2002 Act") has been dismissed on the ground that the Tribunal does not have the power to condone the delay. Direction has also been sought to respondent No.2 to consider the application for condonation of delay and thereafter decide the above mentioned application. Further prayer has been made for restraining the Bank from ta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(P&H) 3489

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, AVNEESH JHINGANOswal Spinning And Weaving Mills Limited And Others – AppellantVersusUCO Bank And Another – Respondent

Cases Referred (13)

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, AVNEESH JHINGAN
Oswal Spinning And Weaving Mills Limited And Others – Appellant
Versus
UCO Bank And Another – Respondent