Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Manish Pitale, Shreeram V. Shirsat, JJ
Kapole Advertising Agency – Appellant
Versus
Standard Chartered Bank – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. sarfaesi auction challenged post-ibc s95 filing and drt rejection (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. dispute over moratorium validity, collusion, and nclt procedural compliance (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. drt erred ignoring automatic ibc s96 interim moratorium trigger (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. nclt sop and prior directions mandate scrutiny before moratorium (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. registry irregularities but moratorium activates on petition registration (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 6. moratorium binding despite lapses or lack of creditor notice (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 7. set aside drt orders; mandate nclt sop compliance (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
Order ( P er Manish Pitale, J) :
1.The petitioners are the original borrowers and they have approached this Court challenging two orders dated 09.01.2026 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai (DRT), whereby Interim Application Nos.2524 of 2025 and 2526 of 2025 filed by them in pending Securitisation Application No.411 of 2025, have been rejected. It is the case of the petitioners that the DRT failed to appreciate the effect of pendency of a petition filed under Section 95 of the Inso
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
