Supreme Court of India Judgements

46670 Judgements hosted as on 9/12/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: SARFAESI

SARFAESI

SARFAESI – Section 14(1A) – Taking of Possession of Secured Assets and Documents – Held, An advocate is and must be regarded as an officer of the court and subordinate to the CMM/DM for the purposes of Section 14(1A) of the 2002 Act – It is open to the District Magistrate (DM) or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) to appoint an advocate and authorise him/her to take possession of the secured assets and documents relating thereto

Feb 27, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NKGSB COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SUBIR CHAKRAVARTY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil…

SARFAESI

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 – Sections 13(4) and 17 – Writ petitions against the notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was not required to be entertained by the High Court – Filing of the writ petition by the borrowers before the High Court is nothing but an abuse of process of Court

Jan 19, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. VISHWA BHARATI VIDYA MANDIR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

SARFAESI

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – Non-Performing Asset – Recovery of loan by auction of mortgaged property – Appeal against order of high court granting benefit under the One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme – No writ of mandamus can be issued by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing a financial institution/bank to positively grant the benefit of One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme to a borrower

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE BIJNOR URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BIJNOR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MEENAL AGARWAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and…

SARFAESI

(SARFAESI) – Section 34 – Civil suit is attracted allegations of ‘fraud’ are made without any particulars – Suit was not maintainable in view of the bar contained under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act – Except the words used ‘fraud’/’fraudulent’ there are no specific particulars pleaded with respect to the ‘fraud’. It appears that by a clever drafting and using the words ‘fraud’/’fraudulent’ without any specific particulars with respect to the ‘fraud’,. Suit not maintainable

Nov 29, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. UV ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.…

SARFAESI

(SARFAESI) – Sections 13(1), 13(2), 13(3), 13(4), 14 and 35 – Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 – Rules 8 and 9 – HELD Since the sale scheduled on 27.2.2012, as per the First Sale Notice dated 21.1.2012, could not be held due to the reasons attributable solely to the guarantors, there was no necessity of again following the same procedure of providing a 30 days’ clear notice.

Oct 3, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH S. KARTHIK AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. N. SUBHASH CHAND JAIN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and…

SARFAESI

SARFAESI Act, it has to satisfy the conditions of Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – If a tenant claims that he is entitled to possession of a Secured Asset for a term of more than a year, it has to be supported by the execution of a registered instrument – HELD even if the tenancy has been claimed to be renewed in terms of Section 13(13) of the SARFAESI Act, the Borrower would be required to seek consent of the secured creditor for transfer of the Secured Asset by way of sale, lease or otherwise, after issuance of the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and, admittedly, no such consent has been sought by the Borrower in the present case – Appeal dismissed.

Aug 22, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HEMRAJ RATNAKAR SALIAN — Appellant Vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, JJ. )…

You missed

Constitution Service

Classification of Military casualties and the eligibility for Liberalised Family Pension — Battle Casualty —Illness Caused by Extreme Climatic Conditions as Battle Casualty — The Court establishes that a soldier’s death due to illness resulting from extreme climatic conditions while on duty near a sensitive border area (such as the Line of Control) can be categorized as a ‘Battle Casualty’ — This expands the interpretation of what constitutes a battle casualty under military regulations. – Liberalised Family Pension (LFP) — Application of Category E (f) — The judgment clarifies that deaths occurring in war-like situations, including those near international borders or lines of control due to environmental stresses, fall under clause (f) of category E of the relevant military order — This broadens the scope of eligibility for LFP under such circumstances.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 384, 364, 302 and 201 — Murder — Circumstantial Evidence — The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges as the prosecution failed to prove the crucial link of the accused’s disclosure leading to the discovery of skeletal remains under Section 27 and the DNA evidence was also found to be inconclusive due to lack of proper collection of samples. – Proof of Disclosure Statements under Section 27 — Voluntariness and Uninfluenced Nature — The Court reiterates that the information provided by an accused under Section 27 must be voluntary and uninfluenced by threat, duress, or coercion.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Arms Act, 1959 — Sections 25, 54 and 59 — Buttondar knife — Specific Intent Required — The court clarifies that mere possession of a knife covered by a notification like the DAD Notification is not sufficient to constitute an offense under the Arms Act — There must be specific intent to use it for the prohibited purposes such as “manufacture, sale, or possession for sale or test.” – The prosecution must clearly allege and prove the intent of the accused to use the weapon for the specified prohibited purposes — Absence of such allegation in the charge-sheet renders the proceedings defective.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw