GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (10) TMI 92 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

2015 (10) TMI 92 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT - TMI - Challenging of order under Section 14 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Petitioner contends that they were not given any opportunity of being heard before passing of the said order Petitioner further holds that the amount due towards the Respondent was not verified and permission for possession of assets of the Petitioner was not justified Held That:- There was no dispute r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. Trivedi, J. For The Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra K. Salecha ORDER By the Court:- 1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 10.11.2009 (Annexure-1) passed by the District Magistrate (Collector), Jaipur, i.e. the respondent No.1 in the application being No.279/2009 filed by the respondent No.2 under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). 2. It appears that the impugne .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

re, had filed the securitisation application being No.33/2013 before the DRT under Section 17 of the said Act, however the DRT vide the order dated 10.06.2015 dismissed the said application on the ground that the order dated 10.11.2009 passed by the respondent No.1 under Section 14 was not appellable under Section 17 of the said Act, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Harshad Goverdhandas Sondagar Versus International Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, (2014) 6 SCC 1. The pe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

respondent No.1 had also not verified as to whether the amount stated to have been due with the respondent No.2, were correct or not. Pressing into service the provisions contained in Section 14(1) of the said Act and the decision of the Apex Court in case of Central Bank of India Versus State of Kerala & Ors., I (2009) Banking Cases 705 (SC), he submitted that the respondent No.1 could not have permitted the respondent No.2 to take possession of the asset of the petitioners with the help of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version