Supreme Court of India Judgements

46650 Judgements hosted as on 11/11/2024 - 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

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw