Skip to main content

Partial Deposit before DRAT is neither a secured asset, nor a secured debt

The Supreme Court in Axis bank vs. SBS Organics Private Limited has held that the partial deposit before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) as a pre-condition for considering the appeal on merits in terms of Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), is neither a secured asset, nor a secured debt, and hence refundable to the appellant on disposal of appeal. Apex Court Bench comprising of Justices Kurian Joseph and R.F. Nariman made this observation while dismissing an appeal filed by Axis Bank against the Gujarat High Court Judgment wherein it was held that the deposit made before DRAT is refundable to the appellant therein.

Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/partial-deposit-drat-neither-secured-asset-secured-debt-refundable-appellant-disposal-appeal-sc/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Requirement of Landlord For His Own Occupation Includes Occupation By Family Member

Supreme Court in Mehmooda Gulshan vs Javaid Hussain Mungloo has held that requirement of landlord for his own occupation could also mean occupation by a member of family and mere non-examination of family member, who intends to do the business, cannot be taken as a ground for repelling reasonable requirement of landlord.
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Board meetings by video-conferencing

In Achintya Kumar Barua vs. Ranjit Barthkur, the NCLAT has held recently that if any director desires to attend board meetings by video conferencing, the company is bound to allow attendance in this manner. In other words, it is not up to the company or at the discretion of the Chairman/Company Secretary whether or not to allow attendance by video conferencing. The right and option is with any director who so desires. NCLAT has held that the words of Section 173(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 are clear on this. There are, of course, some specified resolutions which cannot be considered in a meeting held by video-conference. However, a proviso inserted to Section 173(2) by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2017, though not yet brought into effect, says that even in respect of these matters, if the required quorum is physically present, other directors can attend and participate by video-conferencing.
Post a Comment
Read more