The appeals were filed against impugned orders both dated 17.05.2024. The appellant's counsel argued that loans were granted to M/s Amay Home Services Ltd. and M/s Ruby Buildestates Pvt. Ltd. in 2008. These loans were disbursed between 2008 and March 2009. The respondent issued a First Demand Notice on 13.01.2010 and subsequently took physical possession of the mortgaged property on 23.03.2010. An auction was scheduled for 2010, but the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court restrained the respondent from alienating or transferring the property on 04.05.2010. Company Petitions No. 84/7/JPR/2021 and 83/7/JPR/2021 were filed on 12.08.2021. The appellant's counsel argued that the petitions were filed beyond the limitation period, more than three years after the Code
…Loans were granted to M/s Amay Home Services Ltd. and M/s Ruby Buildestates Pvt. Ltd. in 2008 and disbursed between 2008 and March 2009. The Respondent issued a First Demand Notice on 13.01.2010 and took physical possession of the mortgaged property on 23.03.2010. An auction was scheduled in 2010, but the Rajasthan High Court restrained the Respondent from alienating the property on 04.05.2010. Company Petitions were filed on 12.08.2021, which the Appellant claims were beyond the limitation period, as the Code came into force in 2016. The Appellant argues the impugned order lacks sufficient cause to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Respondent allegedly admitted the petitions should have been filed by December 2019 but benefited from
…Sign in to view the parties.
Loans were granted to…
Loans were di…
The appeals were filed against impugned orders both dated 17.05.2024. The appellant's counsel argued that loans were granted to M/s Amay Home Services Ltd. and M/s Ruby Buildestates Pvt. Ltd. in 2008. These loans were disbursed between 2008 and March 2009. The respondent issued a First Demand Notice on 13.01.2010 and subsequently took physical possession of the mortgaged property on 23.03.2010. An auction was scheduled for 2010, but the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court restrained the respondent from alienating or transferring the property on 04.05.2010. Company Petitions No. 84/7/JPR/2021 and 83/7/JPR/2021 were filed on 12.08.2021. The appellant's counsel argued that the petitions were filed beyond the limitation period, more than three years after the Code
…Loans were granted to M/s Amay Home Services Ltd. and M/s Ruby Buildestates Pvt. Ltd. in 2008 and disbursed between 2008 and March 2009. The Respondent issued a First Demand Notice on 13.01.2010 and took physical possession of the mortgaged property on 23.03.2010. An auction was scheduled in 2010, but the Rajasthan High Court restrained the Respondent from alienating the property on 04.05.2010. Company Petitions were filed on 12.08.2021, which the Appellant claims were beyond the limitation period, as the Code came into force in 2016. The Appellant argues the impugned order lacks sufficient cause to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Respondent allegedly admitted the petitions should have been filed by December 2019 but benefited from
…Loans were granted to…
Loans were di…