Judgments - Debt
KAY BOUVET ENGINEERING LTD. VERSUS OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED
Pratap Technocrats (P) Ltd. & Ors. Versus Monitoring Committee of Reliance Infratel Limited & Anr.
M/s Tirupati Storage and Allied (P) Ltd. Vs. United Commercial Bank
Dena Bank (now Bank of Baroda) versus C. Shivakumar Reddy and Anr.
M/S ORATOR MARKETING PVT. LTD. VERSUS M/S SAMTEX DESINZ PVT. LTD.
INDIA RESURGENCE ARC PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS M/S. AMIT METALIKS LIMITED & ANR.
UNION OF INDIA VERSUS CHIKKAM VIJAY MOHAN
SANDEEP KHAITAN VERSUS JSVM PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES LTD. & Anr.
SHEIKH M. MAROOF VERSUS PHOENIX ARC PVT LTD & ORS
ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED VERSUS BISHAL JAISWAL & ANR.
GHANASHYAM MISHRA AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS EDELWEISS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED
SHITAL FIBERS LTD. VERSUS INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED
Madan Mohan Shrivastava vs. Additional District Magistrate (South) Bhopal and others
Law laid down - (i) Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act permits the secured creditor to take recourse to the measures prescribed therein to recover the secured debt. One such measure is to take possession of the secured asset. Section 14 of the Act gives remedy to the secured creditor to obtain possession of the secured asset by approaching the District Magistrate. Hence, the action of the District Magistrate under Section 14 is in furtherance of the provision contained under Section Full Judgment
Rachna Mahawar vs. The District Magistrate and others
Law laid down - The power under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act can be exercised by the Additional District Magistrate also. The nature of power exercisable under Section 14 of the Act is to facilitate taking over of possession of secured assets and not to decide any contentious issue. Section 37 of the Act specifically provides that application of any other law for the time being in force is not barred. Section 20 of the Cr.P.C. reflects that the Additional Full Judgment