Search Results for "DRT Procedure Rules"

129 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 129 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging DRT Order in SARFAESI Act Matter — One Time Settlement Not Binding as Bank Did Not Accept Offer. Court Held That Mere Submission of OTS Proposal Does Not Create Binding Contract; Bank's Rejection Valid.

The petitioners, borrowers of the respondent bank, challenged the order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Bangalore in Diary No...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Holds Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Appoint Court Receiver Under Section 17 of Arbitration Act. Court Receiver is an Officer of the High Court Subject Only to Chief Justice's Supervision.

The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay filed a Report seeking directions on whether the Registry should accept matters where an Arbitral Tribunal appo...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging DRAT Order Setting Aside DRT's Reference to Arbitration in Bank Recovery Suit. Arbitration Clause Does Not Oust Jurisdiction of DRT Under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

The petitioner, Harvestdeal Securities Ltd., challenged an order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) dated 19 February 2015, which set asid...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging DRAT Order Setting Aside DRT's Reference to Arbitration in Bank Recovery Suit. Debt Recovery Tribunal Has Exclusive Jurisdiction Under RDDB Act, 1993, and Arbitration Clause Cannot Oust It.

The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Harvestdeal Securities Ltd. challenging an order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRA...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Application for Recall/Review of Order Allowing Secured Creditor to Release Leasehold Rights. Applicant, an ex-director and guarantor, lacked locus standi as he was not a party to the original application and no fraud or mistake was established.

The judgment concerns an application filed by Mr Shashikant Pasari, an ex-director and guarantor of Rajan (Textile) Mills Pvt Ltd (in liquidation), se...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging SARFAESI Proceedings Due to Availability of Alternative Remedy. Guarantors and Corporate Debtor Directed to Approach Debt Recovery Tribunal Under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, 2002.

The petitioners, Kishan Chhelaram Manik and Manik Engineering Private Limited, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the ...