Back
DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Justice Anil Kumar Srivastava, CJ
A Lokareddy (Loknath Reddy) – Appellant
Versus
The Authorised Officer, State Bank Of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of auction and securitization application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. legal points considered by drt. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. previous appeals and remand orders. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. drt's findings on auction legality. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. observations on the absence of appeal by the bank. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. arguments by the appellant regarding auction validity. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. respondent's counterarguments. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 8. securitization applicant's status and compliance. (Para 26 , 27) |
| 9. issue of notice non-issuance. (Para 28 , 29) |
| 10. judicial precedents on auction notice requirements. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 11. case distinctions and implications. (Para 34 , 35) |
| 12. compensation and reimbursement considerations. (Para 36 , 37) |
| 13. final order and modifications. (Para 38 , 39) |
The Appellate Tribunal
Instant appeal has arisen against an order dated 25.07.2018 passed by the DRT-IHyderabad in S.A. No. 772 of 2013 (R Baleeshwaraiah Vs. The AO, State Bank of India & Ors.). Feeling aggrieved by the judgement and order the auction purchaser (respondent no.4 in S.A.) preferred the appeal.Respondent no. 1 and 2 in appeal are secured creditor
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
