Back
M. S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, SUKHVINDER KAUR
Hari Chand Papneja – Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. loan default and npa notice issuance (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. petitioner’s offer to purchase property for rs.75 lakhs (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 14) |
| 3. legal challenges by the petitioner regarding property sale (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. court procedures during motion for stay of dispossession (Para 21 , 22 , 24) |
| 5. supreme court involvement and petitioner's withdrawal of writ (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 6. bank's response to petitioner's subsequent offers (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 7. supreme court's guidance on deposit refund issue (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 8. petitioner's request for refund and evidence presented (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 9. petitioner's arguments on deposit purpose and bank's acceptance (Para 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 10. bank's stand against refund based on clauses and deposits (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 11. court's examination of the refund eligibility (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63) |
| 12. court's ruling on the refund of deposit due to non-sale of property (Para 70 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83) |
JUDGMENT
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.
The background facts
The petitioner, who is a partner of M/s Pupneja Rice Mill, had availed cash credit limit and warehouse receipt t
The amount deposited by the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition with a view of show his bonafide to enter into a settlement was required to be returned to the borrower in the event of....
The court upheld the principle of unjust enrichment, ordering the Bank to refund the petitioner Rs.1 crore as he had no liability for the loan repayment, thus prohibiting the Bank from withholding th....
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.
Encashed bank guarantee proceeds deposited as pre-deposit condition for MSME award stay held corporate debtor's CIRP asset subject to moratorium; decree holder claim via resolution process; writ not ....
A bank cannot exercise a general lien to retain title deeds for debts where the mortgagor is not a borrower and has cleared the outstanding loan.
Point of Law- On perusal of the above provisions of section 18 of SARFAESI Act, more particularly, second proviso which provides that the appeal can be entertained only when borrower has deposited wi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the priority of secured creditors over government dues, as per Section 31B of the Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, and Section 26E of the....
A bank cannot assert a general lien over title deeds related to a home loan to secure unrelated debts; repayment of the home loan extinguishes the lien.
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
