RAJENDRA MENON, V.KAMESWAR RAO
Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Vaibhav Jhawar – Respondent
V. Kameswar Rao, C.J.—The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated March 14, 2018 of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short „Appellate Tribunal’) in Misc. Appeal No. 72/2018 whereby the learned Appellate Tribunal has rejected the objection of the petitioner herein insisting on the pre-deposit of half of the amount, which had been claimed by the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act for entertaining the appeal of the respondent.
Facts:-
2. The borrower M/s Surya Construction Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No.6), had mortgaged the property J-14, Community Centre, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi in favour of the petitioner. On its failure to honour the terms of the Loan Agreement, the petitioner initiated action under the SARFAESI Act by issuing a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to the said respondent.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that it took symbolic possession of the secured asset on January 05, 2015. On July 24, 2017, a sale notice was issued for recovery of Rs.4,16,04,827/-. The DRT-I set aside the sale notice dated July 24, 2017 on the ground that the complete description of the property had not been given. The petitioner again
Axis Bank vs. SBS Organics Private Ltd. and Anr.
Kanai Lal Sur v. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan
State of W.B. vs. Union of India
S. Narayanaswami v. G. Panneerselyam
C.I.T., Madras v. T. Sundram Iyengar (P) Ltd.
Ku. Sonia Bhatia v. State of U.P., and others
Nelson Motis vs. Union of India
M/s. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., v. Collector of Central Excise and others
Nasiruddin v. Sita Ram Agarwal
Vemareddy Kumaraswamy Reddy v. State of A.P.
A.N. Roy Commissioner of Police v. Suresh Sham Singh
Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Essar Power Ltd.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.