Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
SEBI is possessed with powers under the SEBI Act, 1992 to direct the petitioner bank in specific, and banks in general, regardless of them being registered with SEBI.
by Siddharth R. Gupta† and Prakriti††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 29
by Shantanu Tyagi† and Aishani Das††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 21
The Court was called upon to decide as to while calculating the amount to be deposited as predeposit under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 50% of which amount the borrower is required to deposit as pre-deposit and whether while calculating the amount of “debt due”, the amount deposited by the auction purchaser on purchase of the secured assets is required to be adjusted and/or appropriated towards the amount of pre-deposit to be deposited by the borrower under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.
Bombay High Court: While hearing a challenge to the Government Notification dated 04/10/2022 changing the jurisdiction of Dept Recovery Tribunals
Bombay High Court: The issue before the Court in the instant matter was that between a secured creditor (defined in
Bombay High Court: While deciding the instantwrit petition wherein the issue was regarding transgression of Additional District Magistrate’s jurisdiction under Section 14
Supreme Court: The bench of L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai*, JJ has held that the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of L. Nageswara Rao and Vineet Saran*, JJ., quashed the confiscation order of Customs and Central Excise
by Rahul Chakraborti†, Prashamsha Tulachan†† and Saumya Agarwal†††
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 27
Supreme Court: Holding Advocates to be officers of the Court, the bench of AM Khanwilkar* and CT Ravikumar, JJ t has held
“If it is held that the borrower can still, as a matter of right, pray for benefit under the OTS Scheme, in that case, it would be giving a premium to a dishonest borrower.”
by Deepanshi Gupta*and Aadesh Shinde**
by Bhoumick Vaidya† and Harshini Kotecha††
Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 77
Kerala High Court: A.M. Badar, J., while dismissing the present petition, reiterated the observations of the Supreme Court in the words, “In
♦ Did you know? In the year 2020, All the Constitution bench verdicts were unanimous with no dissenting opinion. 9 out of
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta* and Ajay Rastogi, JJ has upheld Kerala High Court’s decision holding
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Hima Kohli and Subramonium Prasad, JJ., considered the following question: Whether a bank/financial institution can institute
Karnataka High Court: P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J., rejects the petition seeking the writ of certiorari against the order of NCLT imposing heavy