Category: SARFAESI

Who is liable to pay outstanding statutory electricity dues after auction-sale of property? Supreme Court answers. HELD “That electricity dues, where they are statutory in character under the Electricity Act and as per the terms & conditions of supply, cannot be waived in view of the provisions of the Act itself more specifically Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in pari materia with Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910), and cannot partake the character of dues of purely contractual nature.”

Who is liable to pay outstanding statutory electricity dues after auction-sale of property? Supreme Court answers Shruti Mahajan Jun 3, 2020, 12:27 PM IST The Supreme Court has reiterated that statutory…

Constitution Bench : SARFEASI Act Applicable To Cooperative Banks : SC  HELD “The co­operative banks under the State legislation and multi­ State co­operative banks are ‘banks’ under section 2(1)(c) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002”, 2003 notification issued under the Banking Regulation Act 1949 by which co­operative bank was brought within the class of banks entitled to seek recourse to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, VALID. Decided/May 05, 2020

SARFEASI Act Applicable To Cooperative Banks : SC  LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 5 May 2020 3:58 PM The Supreme Court has held that the Secularization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement…

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 HELD the Bank in anticipation that the auction would be concluded and by the time the application was decided, the sale certificate in favour of the highest bidder would have been issued. There is nothing wrong in Bank moving such application before the conclusion of the auction process and issuance of a sale certificate, in anticipation. it may be appropriate to modify the operative order of the DRAT to the effect that the application filed by the Bank being I.A. No. 995/2017 in O.A. No. 11/2008 is partly allowed by ordering return of the original documents, except in respect of the land bearing Paimash No. 722/4 admeasuring 1.80 acres being subject matter of decree in O.S. No. 186/1976. This arrangement will meet the ends of justice in the facts of the present case.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. TRIPOWER ENTERPRISES (PRIVATE) LIMITED — Appellant Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi,…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 511, 109, 34, 120­B, 406, 409, 420, 405, 417 and 426 – Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) – Section 13(2) – Quashing of criminal proceeding – HELD The SARFAESI Act is a complete code in itself which provides the procedure to be followed -A criminal proceeding would not be sustainable in a matter of the present nature, exposing the appellants even on that count to the proceedings before the Investigating Officer or the criminal court would not be justified

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH K. VIRUPAKSHA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, S. Abdul Nazeer and…

You missed

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.