The case involves a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality, validity, and propriety of an order dated 01.08.2022 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The DRT had ordered the restoration of Securitization Application (SA) No. 176/2022, which was previously dismissed for want of prosecution on 02.05.2022, subject to certain conditions. The petitioners contested the conditions imposed by the DRT for the restoration of the SA.
M/S. Ganpat Pannalal, through its partner Shri Mritunjay Agrawal, along with several other individuals and M/S. Narmada Ginning and Pressing Factory, filed a Securitization Application (SA) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The SA was dismissed for want of prosecution on 02.05.2022 due to the absence of the petitioners' counsel. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application seeking restoration of the SA. On 01.08.2022, the DRT passed an order restoring the SA, subject to the condition that the petitioners deposit Rs. 2 crores in 4 installments within 2 months. The petitioners challenged this conditional restoration order before the High Court, arguing that the DRT lacked the jurisdiction to impose such onerous conditions. The State Bank of India,
…Sign in to view the parties.
Securitization…
The Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) passed an…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.
The case involves a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality, validity, and propriety of an order dated 01.08.2022 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The DRT had ordered the restoration of Securitization Application (SA) No. 176/2022, which was previously dismissed for want of prosecution on 02.05.2022, subject to certain conditions. The petitioners contested the conditions imposed by the DRT for the restoration of the SA.
M/S. Ganpat Pannalal, through its partner Shri Mritunjay Agrawal, along with several other individuals and M/S. Narmada Ginning and Pressing Factory, filed a Securitization Application (SA) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The SA was dismissed for want of prosecution on 02.05.2022 due to the absence of the petitioners' counsel. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application seeking restoration of the SA. On 01.08.2022, the DRT passed an order restoring the SA, subject to the condition that the petitioners deposit Rs. 2 crores in 4 installments within 2 months. The petitioners challenged this conditional restoration order before the High Court, arguing that the DRT lacked the jurisdiction to impose such onerous conditions. The State Bank of India,
…Securitization…
The Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) passed an…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.