‘Audi alteram partem application cannot be impliedly excluded under the Master Directions on Frauds.’
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.
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.
The Delhi High Court held that a borrower cannot ask for alteration of contract by way of a writ petition and a contract can only be altered through mutual consent between the parties.
Bombay High Court: While deciding the instantwrit petition wherein the issue was regarding transgression of Additional District Magistrate’s jurisdiction under Section 14
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of G.S.Patel and Madhav J Jamdar, JJ. dismissed an appeal ruling that lenders are entitled to
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of M. R. Shah* and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ., held that the entire liability outstanding against the borrower
Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Asha Menon, JJ., held that the pawnor, merely by his act
Kerala High Court: A.M. Badar J., allowing the present petition, quashes the attachment made by the State authorities to recover tax dues.
by Arjun Garg* & Rati Tandon**