This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.
SARFAESI Act | As per Unamended S.13(8), Borrower Has Right To Redeem Available Till Sale Certificate Is Registered & Possession Is Handed Over
Bysclaw
Oct 22, 2023By sclaw
Related Post
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 236 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 190, 193 and 200 – The appeal challenges a High Court judgment regarding a complaint filed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India against the Ex-Directors of M/s. SBM Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. for offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The primary issue is whether the Special Court established under Chapter XXVIII of the Companies Act, 2013 has jurisdiction to try offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India argued that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings and that offences under the Code should be tried by the Special Court – The respondents contended that the High Court’s judgment was correct and that the Special Court did not have jurisdiction to try the complaint – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Special Court presided by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to try the complaint under the Code – The Court reasoned that the reference to the Special Court in Section 236(1) of the Code is a ‘legislation by incorporation’ and not a ‘legislation by reference’, meaning subsequent amendments to the Companies Act do not affect the Code – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine that the case is one of ‘legislation by incorporation’ – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration on merits. The judicial opinion emphasizes the importance of legislative intent and the distinction between ‘legislation by incorporation’ and ‘legislation by reference’ in determining jurisdiction.
Apr 27, 2024
sclaw
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – Sections 13(4) and 17 – The Court emphasized that the High Court should not entertain petitions under Article 226 when an effective alternative remedy is available, especially in financial recovery matters – The Court reiterated the principle that confirmed auction sales can only be interfered with in cases of fraud or collusion, which were not present in this case – The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had erred in its decision, and the rights of the auction purchaser should be upheld following the confirmed sale and registration of the property – Appeal Allowed.
Apr 14, 2024
sclaw
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Sections 31(1) and 60 – National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 – Rule 11 – Inherent Powers – Recall of Resolution Plan approval order passed under Sec. 31(1) of IBC – Recall application was maintainable notwithstanding that an appeal lay before the NCLAT against the order of approval passed by the Adjudicating Authority – A Court or a Tribunal, in absence of any provision to the contrary, has inherent power to recall an order to secure the ends of justice and/or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court
Feb 25, 2024
sclaw