TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Third parties in SARFAESI appeals cannot be required to make mandatory pre-deposits under Section 18</h1> <h3>Manoj Kumar Pruthi Versus M/s Magma Housing Finance</h3> Manoj Kumar Pruthi Versus M/s Magma Housing Finance - TMI Issues:1. Application for waiver of pre-deposit under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.2. Dismissal of application for condonation of delay by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT).3. Interpretation of Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act regarding waiver of pre-deposit.4. Consideration of evidence and rejoinder filed by the Petitioner before the DRT.5. Pending proceedings before the DRT and the need for expediting the final report from the Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory (CFSL).Detailed Analysis:1. The judgment deals with a writ petition challenging the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal's order rejecting the Petitioner's application for waiver of pre-deposit under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. The Petitioner disputed a demand notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, claiming no knowledge of the alleged borrowing. The court noted the importance of considering the borrower's status and the need for a fair hearing before dismissing such applications.2. The Petitioner filed an application before the DRT seeking condonation of delay in filing evidence and rejoinder, which was initially declined by the DRT. The High Court set aside the DRT's order, emphasizing that the DRT had granted time for filing evidence and rejoinder, which needed to be considered in the interest of justice.3. The judgment interprets Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act in light of a previous decision where the court held that the provision requiring a 50% deposit for appeals should not render appeals by third parties nugatory. The court emphasized that the borrower's status and involvement in the loan transaction should be considered before imposing pre-deposit conditions.4. The court directed the DRT to accept the evidence and rejoinder filed by the Petitioner, highlighting the importance of ensuring a fair opportunity for presenting the case. The judgment underscores the need for a thorough examination of evidence and submissions before making decisions in matters related to financial disputes and enforcement of securities.5. The judgment also addresses the pending proceedings before the DRT and the delay in receiving the final report from the CFSL. The court directed the CFSL to expedite the final report and transmit it directly to the DRT for independent consideration. The importance of timely resolution and access to relevant documents for all parties involved in the legal proceedings is emphasized throughout the judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
