Category: Banking

(SARFAESI) – Section 13(8) – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 60 – Redemption of mortgage – Failure on the part of the borrower in tendering the entire dues including the charges, interest, costs etc. before the publication of the auction notice as required by Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, would also sufficiently constitute extinguishment of right of redemption of mortgage

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CELIR LLP — Appellant Vs. BAFNA MOTORS (MUMBAI) PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI. and J.B.…

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 80P(4) – National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981 – Banking Regulation Act, 1949 – Sections 5(b), 22 and 56 – If a co-operative society is not a co-operative bank, then such an entity would be entitled to deduction but on the other hand, if it is a co-operative bank within the meaning of Section 56 of BR Act, 1949 read with the provisions of NABARD Act, 1981 then it would not be entitled to the benefit of deduction under sub-section (4) of Section 80P of the Act.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. KSCARDB — Appellant Vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TRIVANDRUM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…

Auction – Bank guarantee – procedure and guidelines laid down by the ASC and that being a part of the auction notice, the appellant was under obligation to comply with and despite opportunity the appellant has failed to comply with both the twin conditions – High Court rightly set aside the auction – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJIV KUMAR JINDAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BCI STAFF COLONY RESIDENTIAL WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and…

HELD on SARFESAI writs to High courts – – When a statute prescribes a particular mode, an attempt to circumvent shall not be encouraged by a writ court. A litigant cannot avoid the noncompliance of approaching the Tribunal which requires the prescription of fees and use the constitutional remedy as an alternative.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. NAVEEN MATHEW PHILIP AND ANOTHER ETC. ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna…

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(i)(g) – proceedings before the Commission being summary in nature, the complaints involving highly disputed questions of facts or the cases involving tortious acts or criminality like fraud or cheating, could not be decided by the Forum/Commission HELD burden of proving the deficiency in service would always be upon the person alleging it.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, CITY UNION BANK LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. R. CHANDRAMOHAN — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and…

Classification of account as fraud – Borrowers have the right to be heard before classify their accounts as fraud – Principles of natural justice demand that the borrowers must be served a notice, given an opportunity to explain the conclusions of the forensic audit report, and be allowed to represent by the banks/ JLF before their account is classified as fraud under the Master Directions on Frauds

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. RAJESH AGARWAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI. and…

Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 – jurisdiction of a Civil Court to try a suit filed by a borrower against a Bank Not ousted by RDB Act – the proceedings under the RDB Act will not be impeded in any manner by filing of a separate suit before the Civil Court – there is no question of transfer of the suit whether by consent or otherwise to DRT

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BANK OF RAJASTHAN LIMITED — Appellant Vs. VCK SHARES & STOCK BROKING SERVICES LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S.…

Sale Contract – Letter of credit – A letter of credit is independent of and unqualified by the contract of sale or underlying transactions – Autonomy of an irrevocable LOC is entitled to protection and as a rule, courts refrain from interfering with that autonomy – If courts interfere in such transactions, it would be prone to misuse by the applicant party

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S BAWA PAULINS PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. UPS FREIGHT SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and…

Contract Act, 1872 – Section 62 – One Time Settlement Scheme – – Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court granting further time to the borrower to make the balance payment under the OTS Scheme in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE BANK OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. ARVINDRA ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.