IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
Moushumi Bhattacharya, Gadi Praveen Kumar
Mansarovar Pearls (India) Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Canara Bank – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. two writ petitions regarding similar issues (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. factual background of financial disputes (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments on review jurisdiction and valuation compliance (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. response by the bank regarding compliance and legal precedence (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. court's observations on review process and legal standards (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 6. validity of auction purchaser's rights (Para 34 , 35) |
| 7. final judgment dismissing one petitioner and allowing another (Para 36 , 37) |
ORDER :
Gadi Praveen Kumar, J.
Since, the issues raised in both the Writ Petitions are one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.
W.P.No.15369 of 2025
2. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners/principal borrowers assailing the judgment dated 05.02.2025 passed in Appeal No.20 of 2024 by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata (DRAT), which is preferred against the order dated 08-01-2024 in Review Petition No.3 of 2023 which was filed against the common order dated 22.05.2023 in Securitization Application (SA) No.87 of 2021 and Transfer Securitization Application (TSA) No.4 of 2021 (Old S.A.No.42/2021) passed by the De
Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal and others
State of Rajasthan and another Vs. Surendra Mohnot and others
Bussa Overseas and Properties Private Limited and another Vs. Union of India
Shanker Motiram Nale Vs. Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput
Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Tax Officer (1) and another
Chilamkurti Bala Subrahmanyam Vs. Samanthapudi Vijaya Lakshmi and another
Anil Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
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.