Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Calcutta High Court reasoned that the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 is not appellate in nature and cannot be exercised to correct mere errors of fact.
The Court is unable to accept that the legislative intent is to provide parallel regimes for the recovery of debts. The provisions of Section 13(10) of the SARFAESI Act, thus, cannot be interpreted in the manner as contended on behalf of the petitioner.
by Tarun Jain†
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 52
The Supreme Court said that it was unfortunate that Mr. Dhonchak had filed the petition against the order of Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Kerala High Court dismissed a petition seeking setting aside of sale of property conducted in violation of SARFAESI Rules, and saidthat the relief sought is within the scope of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, and not Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court opined that instead of shifting the burden of proof on the secured creditor to prove that the secured property was not agricultural property, the Telangana High Court should have laid down the burden of proof on the borrowers.
Bombay High Court: While hearing a challenge to the Government Notification dated 04/10/2022 changing the jurisdiction of Dept Recovery Tribunals
Rajasthan High Court: In a case where the secured creditors like Unit Trust of India (‘UTI’) and a workman have preferred their
Bombay High Court: Expressing that the right to travel abroad has been spelt out from the expression “personal liberty” in Article 21
The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet has approved the appointment of Presiding Officers Debts Recovery Tribunals (DRTs). In a total number of
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, JJ., addressed a pertinent issue of whether the rent act
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Sunil B. Shukre and Anil S. Kilor, JJ., held that mandate of Section 34 leaves
Kerala High Court: A.M. Badar, J., while dismissing the present petition, reiterated the observations of the Supreme Court in the words, “In
Kerala High Court: A.M. Badar, J., while addressing the instant matter held that, demand notices under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act can
Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of A.S. Chandurkar, J. allowed a civil revision application filed by the tenant —
Supreme Court: The Bench of A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ. allowed a writ petition filed by Presiding Officers of the Debt
Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a matter arising under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest (SARFAESI) Act,
Karnataka High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Vineet Kothari, J., decided a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227