Back
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, GAJENDRA SINGH
Kusum Jagdishchandra Singh (Smt. ) – Appellant
Versus
LIC Housing Finance Limited – Respondent
ORDER
Dharmadhikari, J. -- 1. Heard finally with the consent of parties. The present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the order dated 16.5.2023 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur in S.A. No. 36/2024 (I.A. No. 196/2024) by which application for condonation of delay and consequently the securitization application itself has been dismissed on the ground of limitation.
`2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :--
“(i) Call for the records of SA No. 36/2024 and set aside the order dated 16/05/2024 passed in I A No. 196/2024 and further allow IA 1345/2024 for application for stay,
(ii) Pass an order to allow the application for condonation of delay in filing the S A No. 36/2024 under section 17 of SARFAESI Act, 2002,
(iii) Direct the DRT, Jabalpur to treat the S A No. 36/2024 having been filed within limitation and further direct to decide the SA No. 36/2024 on merits in accordance with law,
(iv) To allow the cost of this petition with any other appropriate relief(s) may kindly be granted to the petitioner and,
(v) To pass any other or further order(s) deemed fit and necessary i
though existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, but a writ petition can be entertained in exceptional....
The court established that the right of redemption under the SARFAESI Act is extinguished upon the issuance of a sale certificate, and timely challenge to bank actions is essential.
Though existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, but a writ petition can be entertained in exceptional....
(1) Writ Petition – High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of Constitution if an effective remedy is available to aggrieved person.(2) Auction sale of secured asset – S....
The 45-day limitation period under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is mandatory and cannot be condoned by the DRT due to lack of inherent power.
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....
The DRT must consider the Limitation Act's provisions regarding the condonation of delay in SARFAESI applications, ensuring just consideration of delay reasons.
The DRT has the authority to condone delays in applications under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, applying the Limitation Act provisions.
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
