Search Results for "securitisation application"

Trending :

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensat...
Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Sui...
Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Compulsory Retirement Case Based on Declining ...
Supreme Court Upholds High Court's Determination that Non-Signatory to MoS Not B...

Search Results for "securitisation application"

366 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 366 result(s)

High Court

Gujarat High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging DRT Order as Time-Barred Under Section 17(1) of SARFAESI Act. Limitation Period of 45 Days for Filing Securitisation Application is Mandatory and Cannot Be Extended by the Tribunal.

23 Mar 2026

The petitioner, M/s. Zen Lifecare Ltd., challenged the orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Ahmedabad, dated 20th November 2020 and 6th February 20...

High Court

High Court of Karnataka Allows Refund of Court Fees in DRT Proceedings When Main Petition Becomes Infructuous — Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 Applicable. The court held that the DRT erred in rejecting the refund application without considering Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, which provides for refund when a case becomes infructuous.

19 Nov 2024

The petitioners, Sri Narayana Murthy H M and Smt. Chandrakala R., filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before...

High Court

High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Dismisses Bank's Revision Against Order Rejecting Application Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in Recovery Suits — Held That Plaint Discloses Cause of Action and Is Not Barred by Law. The court upheld the trial court's finding that the suits based on invocation of bank guarantees were within limitation and disclosed a cause of action.

5 Jun 2023

The present judgment arises from two Civil Revision Applications filed by the Regional Manager and Assistant General Manager of Union Bank of India (o...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petitions by Financial Institutions Seeking Police Protection for Secured Asset Recovery Under SARFAESI Act — Held That Section 14 of SARFAESI Act Does Not Oust Writ Jurisdiction and That Police Authorities Must Provide Assistance for Recovery of Possession of Secured Assets.

27 Apr 2023

The judgment involves three writ petitions filed by financial institutions seeking police protection for recovery of possession of secured assets unde...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Secured Creditor's Priority Over Sales Tax Dues in MVAT Act Attachment Dispute. State Bank of India's mortgage charge on borrower's property held superior to VAT recovery under Section 32 of MVAT Act, 2002, following Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala ratio.

17 Dec 2020

The State Bank of India (SBI), a secured creditor, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the attachment of a propert...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Appeal in SARFAESI Act Case — Technical Defect in Demand Notice Not Fatal When No Prejudice Caused. The Court held that a mere inadvertent use of a different group company name on the demand notice does not invalidate proceedings under the SARFAESI Act if the borrower was not misled and no substantial prejudice was caused.

1 Jan 2020

The appeal arose from a dispute between M/s. L&T Housing Finance Limited (appellant) and M/s. Trishul Developers and another (respondents) concerning ...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Appeal in IBC Limitation Dispute — Application Under Section 7 Held Barred by Limitation. Acknowledgment of Debt in Balance Sheets Does Not Extend Limitation for Initiating CIRP Under IBC.

9 Aug 2019

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Babulal Vardharji Gurjar, a director of Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd., against the order of...

High Court

Bombay High Court Upholds DRAT Order Allowing One Time Settlement in Debt Recovery Case — Interest Must Be Calculated as Per OTS Terms. The court held that the DRT erred in not giving effect to the OTS and in calculating interest beyond the OTS terms, and the DRAT correctly set aside the DRT order.

10 Jul 2019

The petitioners, Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) and India SME Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd., challenged an order dated 26th Ma...

High Court

Bombay High Court Hears Writ Petition Challenging DRAT's Waiver of Pre-Deposit and Setting Aside of DRT Order Under SARFAESI Act; Auction Purchaser Disputes Complete Waiver Under Section 18 and Reversal of DRT's Dismissal of Securitisation Application.

30 Nov 2016

The writ petition was filed by an auction purchaser under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging two orders of the Debt Recovery Appell...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Review Petition in Debt Recovery Case — No Error Apparent on Record. Review Petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC fails as petitioner failed to deposit amount as directed, and no grounds for review were made out.

5 Feb 2016

The petitioner, M/s MRB Roadconst. Pvt. Ltd., filed a Review Petition before the Bombay High Court seeking review of an order dated 10th June 2015 pas...

4 5 6 7 8

Full Name * Username * Mobile Number * Email Address * State/UT * City * Password * Confirm Password * Referral Code (Optional)