Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest act, 2002

GBJ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED versus SRIHARAN SRIPATHMANATHAN & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that inviting GBJ Hotels and GRT Hotels to improve their bids was a valid exercise of the Court's inherent power to fetch the best available offer for the secured asset; GRT Hotels' higher offer was accepted and it was declared the successful bidder; Edelweiss ARCL was directed to pay interest at 18% per annum on the sum of Rs.27 crore returned to GBJ Hotels and to take all consequential steps in accordance with law, while leaving other questions open for determination by appropriate fora.

Source excerpt

  • Financial assistance
  • Debt
  • Default in repayment of dues
  • Auction
  • Successful auction purchaser
  • Inherent power to fetch best offers
Read case analysis
Consumer protection

THE CHIEF MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS. versus M/S AD BUREAU ADVERTISING PVT. LTD & ANR.

The Court held that respondent No.1 is not a 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) because obtaining the project loan had a close nexus with a profit-generating activity and the dominant purpose for the loan was commercial (to generate profits from post-production of the film); consequently, the NCDRC lacked jurisdiction and its order dated 30.08.2023 was set aside.

Source excerpt

  • Definition of consumer
  • Maintainability of consumer complaint
  • Deficiency in service
  • Wrongful reporting to credit information bureau
  • Project loan
  • Commercial purpose
Read case analysis
Insolvency and bankruptcy

TOTTEMPUDI SALALITH versus STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

The Court held that a recovery certificate gives rise to a fresh cause of action enabling a financial creditor to initiate CIRP under Section 7 IBC within the limitation period (three years from issuance of the recovery certificate as per Article 137), and the doctrine of election cannot be used to bar financial creditors from approaching the NCLT after issuance of a recovery certificate. The Limitation Act applies to IBC proceedings; a post-filing letter of 29.01.2020 did not revive any time-barred claim when it was not pleaded and was issued after initiation of insolvency proceedings. Two r…

Source excerpt

  • Section 7 ibc
  • Corporate insolvency resolution process (cirp)
  • Recovery certificate
  • Doctrine of election
  • Acknowledgement of debt
  • Moratorium
Read case analysis
Property

BIKRAM CHATTERJI & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS

The Court declined to release the attachment of all assets of the applicant because the applicant’s proprietary entitlement to the attached property was not finally determined (documents relied upon were unregistered and IAs not finally disposed), there were divergent quantifications of alleged siphoning (forensic auditors v. ED), and prima facie the bulk of investment in the lands came from the Amrapali Group (approx. Rs.21 crores); therefore attachments must continue pending resolution of the interlocutory applications.

Source excerpt

  • Release of attachment
  • Title and entitlement to property
  • Provisional attachment under pmla
  • Quantification of liability
  • Conflicting forensic and ed findings
Read case analysis
Banking law

BANK OF BARODA versus M/S KARWA TRADING COMPANY & ANR.

The court held that orders directing release of mortgaged property and handing over title deeds on deposit of partial amounts (reserve price or highest bid) were contrary to Section 13(8) SARFAESI Act because only deposit of entire dues together with costs, charges and expenses would restrain the secured creditor from selling the secured asset; accordingly the Division Bench order was quashed, the Single Judge's setting aside of DRT/DRAT was restored, and the bank was permitted to proceed afresh with auction while the DRT decides the pending SA on merits.

Source excerpt

  • Enforcement of security interest
  • Auction of secured assets
  • Interim relief under section 17 sarfaesi act
  • Possession under section 14 sarfaesi act
  • Deposit to redeem secured asset (section 13(8) sarfaesi act)
Read case analysis
Securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest act, 2002

S. KARTHIK & ORS. versus N. SUBHASH CHAND JAIN & ORS.

The Second Sale Notice dated 9.7.2012 was a continuation of the First Sale Notice dated 21.1.2012, and because the sale scheduled on 27.2.2012 under the First Sale Notice could not proceed solely due to interim orders obtained on the appellants' representations, there was no requirement to issue a fresh 30 days' clear notice before the sale on 20.7.2012; the sale having been confirmed and registered (sale certificate registered on 14.9.2012) extinguished the mortgagors' right of redemption; the DRAT correctly reversed the DRT insofar as setting aside the sale and imposition of costs, and the…

Source excerpt

  • Enforcement of security interest under section 13 sarfaesi act
  • Notice and sale procedure under rules 8 and 9 of the sarfaesi rules, 2002
  • Right of redemption and extinguishment on registration of sale certificate
  • Remedies under article 142 of the constitution
Read case analysis
Recovery of debts and bankruptcy act, 1993

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK PVT. LIMITED versus AMBUJ A. KASLIWAL & ORS.

Section 21 of the RDBA mandates pre-deposit of fifty per cent of the decretal amount to entertain an appeal, with discretion to reduce to not less than twenty-five per cent for reasons recorded; a total waiver is contrary to the statutory scheme. The High Court order waiving pre-deposit in entirety was set aside and DRAT’s order was modified to permit respondents to pre-deposit twenty-five per cent of Rs.68,18,92,841 and prosecute the appeal, subject to deposit within eight weeks.

Source excerpt

  • Pre-deposit
  • Section 21 rdba
  • Waiver of pre-deposit
  • Drat jurisdiction
Read case analysis
Insolvency and bankruptcy

M/S. RELIANCE ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD. versus M/S HOTEL POONJA INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.

The Section 7 application was time-barred under Article 137 because the right to sue accrued on 01.04.1993 (date account declared NPA) and at the latest on 27.03.2003 (DRT Recovery Certificate); the appellant did not plead or produce evidence of any written signed acknowledgement made before expiry of limitation that would restart limitation under Section 18; the balance sheet (16.08.2017) and letter (23.04.2019) did not amount to acknowledgements of liability, and assignment/substitution did not save the Section 7 application from being time-barred.

Source excerpt

  • Section 7 ibc
  • Article 137 limitation act, 1963
  • Section 18 limitation act, 1963 (acknowledgement)
  • Assignment/substitution in execution proceedings
Read case analysis
Debt recovery

M/S. TRIPOWER ENTERPRISES (PRIVATE) LIMITED versus STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

The appeal is partly allowed: the DRAT order is modified to direct return of the original documents Exhibits A110 to A114 to the Bank/auction purchaser, except documents relating to Paimash No.722/4 admeasuring 1.80 acres (subject to a final decree in O.S. No.186/1976), and the High Court order restoring DRT retention is reversed; the DRT remains free to decide the pending O.A. No.11/2008 on merits.

Source excerpt

  • Return of original documents
  • Validity of equitable mortgage
  • Auction sale and sale certificate
  • Res judicata
  • Possession under section 13(4) of the sarfaesi act
  • Release of title documents
Read case analysis
Banking

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA versus M/S ALLWYN ALLOYS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

Civil courts have no jurisdiction to entertain suits or proceedings in respect of matters under the Securitisation Act that DRT or DRAT are empowered to determine; relief sought in respect of secured assets can only be decided by DRT.

Source excerpt

  • Securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest act, 2002
  • Jurisdiction of civil courts
  • Equitable mortgage
  • Enforcement of security interests
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.