Back
G. S. SANDHAWALIA, SANJIV BERRY
Snoozer Bedding Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Canara Bank – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to securitization notices and order. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner seeks extension and argues for msme protections. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. disclosure of ots proposal is crucial for court. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. court emphasis on disclosure of material facts. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. writ petition dismissed; funds ordered to be credited. (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, J.
Today applications i.e. CM-4944 & 6417-CWP-2023 for recalling of the order dated 29.03.2023 and for seeking extension of time for depositing the part payment have been listed. With the consent of counsels for the parties the main case itself is taken on board for hearing.
2. Challenge in the present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Re-construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ' 2002 Act') dated 07.04.2021 (Annexure P-19) and the subsequent notice issued under Section 13 (4) of the 2002 Act dated 05.04.2022 (Annexure P-29) alongwith the sale notice dated 15.12.2022 (Annexure P-30). Challenge has also been raised to the o
The duty of a litigant to disclose all material facts and the bank's right to protect its recovery were the central legal points established in the judgment.
Subsection 3 of Section 13 makes it clear that a notice under Subsection 2 shall give details of the amount payable by the borrower. If Ms.Lodha’s submission were to be accepted, then the word “shall....
Point of Law : IT IS THE SOLEMN DUTY OF THE COURT TO APPLY THE CORRECT LAW WITHOUT WAITING FOR AN OBJECTION TO BE RAISED BY A PARTY, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE LAW STANDS WELL SETTLED.
Point of Law - It is not for a litigant to decide what fact is material for adjudicating a case and what is not material. It is the obligation of a litigant to disclose all the facts of a case and le....
No borrower has a vested right to compel a bank to accept a One Time Settlement, as banks retain discretion in recovery matters.
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
