Supreme Court of India Judgements

46400 Judgements hosted as on 14/04/2024 - 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

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