Back
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA, JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH, JJ
Rasheed Khan – Appellant
Versus
Authorised Officer Uco Bank And Anr. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of loan and guarantor (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. drt proceedings and appeals (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. counsel's submission on statutory provisions (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. interpretation of section 13(8) (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. right of redemption explained (Para 12) |
| 6. writ petition outcome (Para 13) |
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by an order dated 06.05.2013 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (in short “DRAT”), whereby Appeal No.R-164/2012 filed by respondent No.2 has been allowed. The matter has been remanded back to the Debt Recovery Tribunal (in short “DRT”) for fresh adjudication.
The facts of the case in short are as follows:
02. M/s Ratlam Recycle Board Industries through its proprietor Miss Kiran Badera. Miss Kiran Badera took a loan of Rs.15 Lacs from respondent No.1 / UCO Bank by creating a property mortgaged on 31.03.2006. Respondent No.2 stood as a guarantor by mortgaging her property. Since the borrower could not repay the loan, therefore, the bank initiated the proceeding and declared the account as NPA. The bank issued a notice under Section 13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Asset
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
