‘Bank cannot open Lookout Circular as an arm-twisting tactic’; Delhi HC quashes Circular issued by Union Bank of India to recover debt
The Delhi High Court said that a Lookout Circular is a major impediment for a person who wants to travel abroad.
Debt Recovery
Delhi High Court| Remedy under Section 13(10) of SARFAESI Act cannot be considered as a remedy independent of the RDB Act
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.
Divesting DRTs of their pecuniary jurisdiction without any amendment to RDB Act 1993 is unsustainable; Bombay HC stays notification changing DRT jurisdiction in matters above ₹100 crores
Bombay High Court: While hearing a challenge to the Government Notification dated 04/10/2022 changing the jurisdiction of Dept Recovery Tribunals
Judgment Debtor’s right under Rule 60 of Second Schedule of Income Tax Act a valuable right to save his property; cannot be taken away on technical ground or bona fide mistake for which he is not at fault: SC
Supreme Court: The bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that the right available to the judgment debtor under
Whether proceedings be entertained for recovery of money realized by sale of assets of company against which winding up proceedings are pending? Rajasthan High Court analyses
Rajasthan High Court: In a case where the secured creditors like Unit Trust of India (‘UTI’) and a workman have preferred their
Does the remedy under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act becomes redundant if DM is unable to take possession of secured assets within time limit? Read what SC says
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta* and Ajay Rastogi, JJ has upheld Kerala High Court’s decision holding
SC| Secured creditor can file winding up petition even after obtaining a recovery certificate from DRT
Supreme Court: In a case dealing with companies defaulting a loan of Rs. 48 Crores including interest from Kotak Mahindra Bank, the
Vijay Mallya found guilty of contempt; to appear before the Supreme Court on 10.07.2017
Supreme Court: Finding Vijay Mallya guilty of contempt of court, the Bench of A.K. Goel and U.U. Lalit, JJ directed him to
Educational Trust, with assets worth Rs. 12,000 crores, is a willful defaulter and should repay loan of Rs. 75 Crores to HUDCO
Supreme Court: In the matter where the Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd (HUDCO) had initiated proceedings against the Maharaji Educational Trust
Pre-deposit under S. 18 of SARFAESI Act to file an appeal before DRAT not a secured asset
Supreme Court: Deciding the question as to the fate of the deposit on the disposal of the appeal in case of an