Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4784
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
541 to 560 of 95673 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The court examined whether the suit is barred u/s 34 of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner, being a shareholder, lacks locus standi to challenge the secured creditor's actions. However, the pleadings allege fraud and collusion between the respondents, including the bank, in sanctioning the loan without due process. The court held that averments of fraud and collusion cannot be rejected outright, and the relief sought for declaring the loan facility and mortgage as null is not within DRT's jurisdiction under SARFAESI Act but permissible under Specific Relief Act. The lower courts erred in considering documents contrary to pleadings. The petitioner cannot be denied remedy against secured creditors' actions. Consequently, the High Court quashed the lower court orders, restoring the plaint to the Commercial Court for adjudication in accordance with law.
The court examined whether the suit is barred u/s 34 of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner, being a shareholder, lacks locus standi to challenge the secured creditor's actions. However, the pleadings allege fraud and collusion between the respondents, including the bank, in sanctioning the loan without due process. The court held that averments of fraud and collusion cannot be rejected outright, and the relief sought for declaring the loan facility and mortgage as null is not within DRT's jurisdiction under SARFAESI Act but permissible under Specific Relief Act. The lower courts erred in considering documents contrary to pleadings. The petitioner cannot be denied remedy against secured creditors' actions. Consequently, the High Court quashed the lower court orders, restoring the plaint to the Commercial Court for adjudication in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
