9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to impugned order of AAIFR, Delay & laches in filing petition, Abatement of reference by BIFR, Creation of charge in favor of CBI, Premature abatement under SARFAESI Act, Jurisdiction of BIFR under SICA and SARFAESI Act, Interpretation of measures under SARFAESI Act, Comparison of Division Bench and Supreme Court judgments, Validity of DRT judgment on CBI's second charge, Dispute over CBI's charge on land, Merit of the writ petition, Dismissal of the petition. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a writ petition challenging an order of AAIFR, where the petitioner company faced financial difficulties and approached BIFR under SICA. The BIFR abated the reference due to CBI's action under SARFAESI Act. The petitioner contested the abatement, arguing that SARFAESI proceedings were stayed and challenged the creation of charge in favor of CBI. The DRT had earlier confirmed CBI's second charge, which remained unchallenged. The petitioner also disputed CBI's second charge on the land. The court noted the delay in filing the petition and lack of merit in the petitioner's contentions to evade CBI's dues. The judgment discussed the jurisdiction of BIFR under SICA and SARFAESI Act, emphasizing that BIFR cannot determine if measures under SARFAESI Act were correctly taken by secured creditors. It compared the Division Bench and Supreme Court judgments, concluding that the Supreme Court did not overturn the Division Bench's decision. The court highlighted that the DRT judgment on CBI's second charge was binding and unchallenged. It dismissed the petitioner's arguments regarding CBI's status as a secured creditor based on SICOM's communication, citing the DRT judgment's conclusive findings. The court ultimately deemed the writ petition meritless and an attempt to avoid repayment to CBI. The judgment underscored the importance of upholding legal decisions and found no grounds to support the petitioner's claims. It highlighted the petitioner's failure to challenge the DRT judgment on CBI's charge and emphasized the binding nature of that decision. The court rejected the petitioner's arguments against CBI's charge on the land and concluded that the petition lacked merit, serving as an attempt to evade financial obligations to CBI. The court dismissed the writ petition and the associated application, noting the absence of representation from CBI.
|
