TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the pleadings and reliefs challenged by the petitioner were liable to be struck out under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the relief concerning residue sale proceeds after auction was barred by Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Analysis: The plaint was found to disclose a substantive dispute regarding whether the properties were acquired from HUF nucleus and whether the plaintiff could claim entitlement to the residue amount after auction. At the stage of striking out pleadings, the Court held that the averments could not be treated as unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. The relief relating to residue amount was also held not to be a challenge to the bank proceedings themselves, and the Court held that the dispute over entitlement to the residue amount and the HUF character of the property was not shown to be one that the Debts Recovery Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal was empowered to determine. The petitioner's reliance on the cited Supreme Court decision was distinguished on facts.
Conclusion: The application for striking out pleadings was not liable to be allowed, and the relief in question was not held to be barred by Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
TaxTMI 
