Supreme Court of India Judgements

46400 Judgements hosted as on 14/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: SARFAESI

SARFAESI

HELD the borrower can take the benefit of the amount received by the creditor in an auction sale only if he unequivocally accepts the sale. In a case where the borrower also challenges the auction sale and does not accept the same and also challenges the steps taken under Section 13(2)/13(4) of the SARFAESI Act with respect to secured assets, the borrower has to deposit 50% of the amount claimed by the secured creditor along with interest as per section 2(g) of the Act 1993 and as per section 2(g), “debt” means any liability inclusive of interest which is claimed as due from any person.

Jan 8, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S SIDHA NEELKANTH PAPER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. PRUDENT ARC LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah…

SARFAESI

(SARFAESI) – Section 18 – Pre-deposit – Whether, while calculating the amount to be deposited as pre-deposit under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 50% of which amount the borrower is required to deposit as pre-deposit? – in a case where both are under challenge, namely, steps taken under Section 13(4) against the secured assets and also the auction sale of the secured assets, in that case, the “debt due” shall mean any liability (inclusive of interest) which is claimed as due from any person, whichever is higher.

Jan 8, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S SIDHA NEELKANTH PAPER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. PRUDENT ARC LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah…

SARFAESI

HELD per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act the seller was bound to disclose any buyer any material defect in the property of which the buyer is not aware and which the buyer could not ordinarily discover. Under the circumstances also the submission on behalf of the Bank that the property was put to auction on “as is where is” and “as is what is” condition, thereafter the plaintiff shall not be entitled to compensation of the less area cannot be accepted.

Nov 27, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MRS. LEELAMMA MATHEW — Appellant Vs. M/S INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ. )…

SARFAESI

(SARFAESI) – Section 13(2) – Proceedings under Section 13(2) SARFAESI Act – mere typographical error due to inadvertence which has not caused any prejudice to the borrowers, that in itself could not be considered to be the ground to annul the process held by the secured creditor which is in due compliance with the requirement as contemplated under the provisions of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

Nov 27, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VARIMADUGU OBI REDDY — Appellant Vs. B. SREENIVASULU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

SARFAESI

Application under Section 14 SARFAESI Act – District Magistrate (DM)/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) is not required to adjudicate the dispute between the borrower and the secured creditor and/or between any other third party and the secured creditor with respect to the secured assets.

Oct 9, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH BALKRISHNA RAMA TARLE DEAD THR LRS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah…

You missed

Arbitration Constitution

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Curative petition – The Court found that the arbitral tribunal’s decision was not perverse or irrational and that the CMRS certificate did not conclusively prove that defects were cured within the cure period – The Court emphasized the tribunal’s domain to interpret the contract and the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards – The Supreme Court concluded that the curative petition was maintainable and that there was no miscarriage of justice in restoring the arbitral award.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302, read with 34 – Murder – The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not properly address whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was a plausible conclusion from the evidence – The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the accused do not have to prove their innocence unless there is a statutory reverse onus – The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not warrant overturning the acquittal, as the Trial Court’s view was possible and not perverse.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Dispute over a blocked pathway – The Court found no evidence of provocation by the deceased that would justify the appellants’ brutal attack, nor any exercise of the right to private defence – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine the lack of private defence and the presence of intention to cause harm – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellants’ actions were not in self-defence and that their intention was to inflict harm, affirming the lower courts’ decisions.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Law – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 45 – Policy not to be called in question on ground of mis-statement after two years – The Court found no suppression of material facts and criticized the NCDRC for not requiring proper evidence from the respondent – The judgment discusses the principles of ‘uberrimae fidei’ (utmost good faith) and the burden of proof in insurance contracts – The Court concluded that the insurance company failed to prove the alleged suppression of facts, thus the repudiation was unjustified.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw