IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO
Classic Chemicals Limited – Appellant
Versus
Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Kolkata – Respondent
ORDER :
B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, J.
WP.No.4623 of 2025
1. This Writ Petition is filed by the auction purchaser (M/S Classic Chemicals Limited) in the nature of Writ of Certiorari for setting aside the impugned order, dated 10.01.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) at Kolkata in Appeal No.29 of 2021 and to quash the same, confirm the auction sale conducted on 22.03.2013 as valid and in accordance with The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act, 2002’) and the Rules made thereunder.
WP.No.4373 of 2025
2. This Writ Petition is filed by State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch, Hyderabad to issue a Writ in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and to call for the records of the order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Kolkata in Appeal No.56 of 2022 against the order dated 05.03.2021 made in S.A.No.1115 of 2017 passed by the DRT-II, Hyderabad contrary to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and to set aside the same.
3.1 Learned counsel for auction purchaser in W.P.No.4623 of 2025 submits that on 14.02.2013 respondent No.2-Bank has
Varimadugu Obi Reddy Vs. B.Sreenivasulu & Others
General Manager, Sri Siddeshwara Cooperative Bank Limited Vs. Ikbal & Others
Poddar Steel Corporation Vs. Ganesh Engineering Works & Ors.
Sri Vijayalakshmi Rice Mills, New Contractors Co. Vs. State of Andhra 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.