Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
DINESH MEHTA, J
M/s Madan Mohan Jain And Sons – Appellant
Versus
Yes Bank Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judicial interference in bank loan matters is limited. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner proposes payment plan and request to lift the property seizure. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. acceptance of proposal by the bank (Para 5) |
| 4. court directs terms for compliance regarding the payments. (Para 6) |
| 5. the petition stands disposed with clear directives. (Para 7 , 8) |
Order
04/07/2025
1. This Court is not oblivious of the legal position that the scope of interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matters relating to bank loans and proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2002’) is very limited, but since the petitioner is ready and willing to get his account settled and considering that he is prepared to deposit a sum of Rs.1,10,00,000/- today itself out of the total outstanding amount of Rs.5,54,00,000/-, this Court is inclined to entertain the petition.
2. Mr. Kotwani, learned counsel for the petitioner in presence of the petitioner – Subhash Chand Jain submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to clear the entire dues and he
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
