AI Overview...
-
DRT Orders and Appeals - Multiple references involve orders passed by Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRT) and subsequent appeals, including dismissal of SAs (Stay Applications) and challenges to auction proceedings. Notably, in Sa No. 90 of 2013, orders related to auction validation, stay dismissals, and rejection of waiver applications are discussed. A. R. Moulds and Dies India Private Limited Rep. By its Managing Director Y. Rajan Coimbatore VS International Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd Rep. By its Authorised Officer Chennai - Madras, Cynthia K. Theleepan VS Reserve Bank of India, Fort Glacis, Chennai - Madras, Classic Chemicals Limited vs Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Kolkata - Telangana, Sekar Stores Home Mart Rep by Its Partner S. V. S. Manivannan VS Authorized Officer Pridhvi Asset Reconstruction & Securitisation Company Ltd - Madras
-
Auction Validity and Challenges - Several sources highlight disputes over auction processes, including setting aside or upholding auction sales, such as the case where the auction held on 22.03.2013 was set aside by the DRT, and the subsequent appeals before DRAT. The courts have examined whether proper procedures were followed, including hearing objections and adherence to SARFAESI Act provisions. Classic Chemicals Limited vs Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Kolkata - Telangana, Tropical Coatings International Private Limited VS Authorized Officer & Anr. - Andhra Pradesh
-
Waiver of Pre-deposit and Stay Applications - Multiple instances show applicants seeking waiver of pre-deposit amounts and the DRT's decisions on these applications. The courts have scrutinized whether the applicants' requests were justified, often remanding cases for fresh disposal or dismissing petitions based on procedural defaults. A. R. Moulds and Dies India Private Limited Rep. By its Managing Director Y. Rajan Coimbatore VS International Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd Rep. By its Authorised Officer Chennai - Madras, Sekar Stores Home Mart Rep by Its Partner S. V. S. Manivannan VS Authorized Officer Pridhvi Asset Reconstruction & Securitisation Company Ltd - Madras
-
NPA Classification and Loan Recovery - The classification of accounts as NPAs (Non-Performing Assets) and subsequent recovery actions, including notices under Section 13(2) and measures under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI, are discussed. Challenges to these measures have been brought before the DRT, with courts examining the legality and procedural correctness of such actions. Cynthia K. Theleepan VS Reserve Bank of India, Fort Glacis, Chennai - Madras
-
Specific Case Insights -
- In Sa No. 90 of 2013, the order dated 8/2/2018 and subsequent dismissals of stay applications are significant, with appeals questioning the legality of auction and recovery proceedings. A. R. Moulds and Dies India Private Limited Rep. By its Managing Director Y. Rajan Coimbatore VS International Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd Rep. By its Authorised Officer Chennai - Madras
- The case involving auction held on 9.07.2013, where the order was upheld in appeal, reflects disputes over auction legality. Vision Organics Ltd. VS Fatehsinh M Chauhan - Gujarat
- Disputes over valuation, classification as NPA, and auction notices are evident in cases like Criminal Petition No. 100323/2018, which was dismissed, indicating procedural or substantive issues in the recovery process. K. Virupaksha VS State of Karnataka - Supreme Court
- Judicial scrutiny on procedural adherence, including hearing objections before confirming auction sales, is a recurring theme, leading to remand or setting aside orders. Tropical Coatings International Private Limited VS Authorized Officer & Anr. - Andhra Pradesh
Analysis and Conclusion: The collection of cases related to Sa No. 90 of 2013 demonstrates ongoing judicial oversight of DRT orders concerning recovery proceedings, auction validity, and procedural compliance under SARFAESI. Courts have repeatedly emphasized the importance of fair hearing, adherence to statutory procedures, and proper valuation before auctioning secured assets. Disputes often revolve around whether procedural lapses or violations of rights occurred, leading to remand or cancellation of auction sales. Overall, the jurisprudence underscores the need for transparency and procedural fairness in debt recovery and asset sale processes.
Search Results for "Drt Ra no 2018 in Sa no 90 of 2013"
2018 0 Supreme(Mad) 872 • India - Madras
S.MANIKUMAR, V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
... Heard on I.A.No.279 of 2018, which is an application for waiver of pre-deposit. ... Appellants have challenged the order dated 8/2/2018 of DRT, Coimbatore by which I.A.No.2375 of 2017 in S.A.No.90 of 2013 was dismissed. ... Assailing the correctness of the orders, dated 14/3/2018 and 11/4/2018, made in A.I.R.(SA) No.117 of 2018 in I.A.No.2375 of 2017 in S.A.No.90 of 2013 and I.A.No.279 of 2018....
2022 0 Supreme(Guj) 1533 • India - Gujarat
N. V. ANJARIA, BHARGAV D. KARIA
Appeal No.5/2018 quashing and setting aside order dated 1.11.2017 passed by the DRT and the auction held on 9.07.2013 which was confirmed on 4.09.2013, was upheld. ... Appeal No.5/2018 filed by respondent no.1-auction purchaser feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 1.11.2017 in Appeal No.4/2013 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmedabad (For short “DRT”). 3. ... Partners and others in Civil Appeal No.154/2013 and therefore, the ....
2020 0 Supreme(Mad) 1804 • India - Madras
A.P.SAHI, SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
The said group accounts were declared as NPA in May 2018. Thereafter, a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued by the Bank in November 2018 and measures were taken under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act thereafter. The Appellants challenged those measures before the DRT. ... The admitted position is that notices under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act were issued in November 2018 and measures under Section 13(4) thereof were taken. Pursuant thereto, the Appellants have initiated proceedings before the....
2022 0 Supreme(P&H) 685 • India - Punjab and Haryana
M. S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, HARMINDER SINGH MADAAN
It also dismissed the SA pending before the DRT-II, Chandigarh. ... The final order dt.23.8.2013 passed by DRT-I, Chandigarh in SA 17 of 2012 Taking note of these facts, SA No.17 of 2012 was disposed of on 23.08.2013 by the DRT-I, Chandigarh. ... In the meantime, on 23.08.2013, the DRT-I, Chandigarh disposed of the SA 17 of 2012 as infructuous. ... It also held that the DRT should have decided the SA which it had merely disposed of as infructuous vi....
2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 1277 • India - Madras
S.MANI KUMAR, V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
As far as W.P.No.3419 of 2018 is concerned, the State Bank of India is the petitioner, and it is filed against the order passed by DRAT, Chennai, dated 14.12.2017 on the ground that the respondents 3 to 17 in W.P.No.3419 of 2018 are due and liable to pay a sum of Rs.77,91,96,968.90 as on 31.08.2016. ... 2018 is dismissed. ... It could be seen from the records available that the original application in O.A.No.607 of 2016 filed before the DRT-II, Chennai, was against M/s.East Coast Construction and Indust....
2025 0 Supreme(Telangana) 1359 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Rule 9(3) and Rule 9(4) - The validity of the auction sale conducted on 22.03.2013 ... Aggrieved by the judgment of the DRT, dated 17.10.2018, auction purchaser and secured creditor/Bank have filed Appeal Nos.188 of 2018 and 199 of 2018 before DRAT Kolkata. ... On 17.10.2018, the DRT-II had allowed the SA filed by the borrower by setting aside the e-auction sale held on 22.03.2013 and directed the resp....
2023 0 Supreme(AP) 611 • India - Andhra Pradesh
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, B. V. L. N. CHAKRAVARTHI
The DRT dismissed the SA and allowed the bank to register the sale of item No.1 in favor of the auction purchaser. ... The DRT erred in validating the auction sale of item No.1 without hearing the petitioners' objections and violating principles of ... The impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the DRT for fresh disposal, either by dismissing the SA in light of ... Since there was no positive response from the DRT VSP, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.43745/2018 before the High....
2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 53649 • India - High Court of Kerala
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J
(DRT)No.90/2018 3 with the matter as it desires. And any further default on the petitioners' part should not entail them for any equitable consideration. ... (DRT)No.90/2018 2 submitted that the petitioners have been deliberately dragging the proceedings. According to her, this is the third writ petition before this Court. ... Initially, on 7.2.2013, the Tribunal dismissed the S.A. for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.895/2013....
2020 4 Supreme 759 • India - Supreme Court
R.BANUMATHI, S.ABDUL NAZEER, A.S.BOPANNA
Facts of the Case: Appellants herein were the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.100323/2018 ... discrepancy in manner of classifying account of appellants as NPA or in the manner in which property was valued or was auctioned, DRT ... The auction notice dated 30.12.2013 was impugned therein. ... The appellants herein were the petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 100323/2018 which was dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench through the order dated 21.01.2019. ... It is contended that though the loan of Rs....
2018 0 Supreme(Mad) 3215 • India - Madras
V.K.TAHILRAMANI, M.DURAISWAMY
In the said appeals, the petitioners filed I.A.No.483 of 2018 in AIR (SA).No.154 of 2018 and I.A.No.487 of 2018 in AIR (SA).No.156 of 2018 for waiver of pre-deposit. ... Similarly, in AIR (SA).No.156 of 2018, the Tribunal directed the petitioners to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 1.90 crores on the basis of the notice amount (i.e.) Rs. 7.60 crores. ... 4. ... Challenging the orders passed in S.A.Nos.115 & 116 of 2013 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal III, Chennai,....
Filter by Legal Phrase
