Full Text
Translation output
f
A-16
% 01.09.2011
Present: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Hemant Chaudhri and Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Singh, Advocates for the respondent with Ms. Sonu Bharia, Manager Legal, IBHF.
+CM (M) NO. 478/2011 and CM NO. 8038/2011 (stay)
*
Order impugned before this court is the order dated 31.03.2011 vide which order had been passed by the learned ACMM on an apphcation under Section 14(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Finance Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
(hereinafter referred to as 'the SRFAESI Act'). This apphcation is at page
64 of the paper book. Impugned order had appointed a receiver.
Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that in view of the
A-16
% 01.09.2011
Present: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Hemant Chaudhri and Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Singh, Advocates for the respondent with Ms. Sonu Bharia, Manager Legal, IBHF.
+CM (M) NO. 478/2011 and CM NO. 8038/2011 (stay)
*
Order impugned before this court is the order dated 31.03.2011 vide which order had been passed by the learned ACMM on an apphcation under Section 14(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Finance Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
(hereinafter referred to as 'the SRFAESI Act'). This apphcation is at page
64 of the paper book. Impugned order had appointed a receiver.
Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that in view of the
JUDGMENT
of the Apex Court reported in IT 2011 (3) 159 titled as
Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors. vs. State ofMaharashra & Ors.. an order which has been passed under Section 14 of the SRFEASI Act has to be assailed by way of filing an appeal before the DRT.
"20. Weare in respectful agreement with the above enunciation oflaw on the point. It is manifest that an action under Section 14 of the Act constitutes an action taken after the stage of Section 13(4) of the Act, by providingfor an appeal before the DRT."
Petition is not maintainable; it is dismissed./
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 01, 2011 rb
2011:DHC:7637
Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors. vs. State ofMaharashra & Ors.. an order which has been passed under Section 14 of the SRFEASI Act has to be assailed by way of filing an appeal before the DRT.
"20. Weare in respectful agreement with the above enunciation oflaw on the point. It is manifest that an action under Section 14 of the Act constitutes an action taken after the stage of Section 13(4) of the Act, by providingfor an appeal before the DRT."
Petition is not maintainable; it is dismissed./
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
SEPTEMBER 01, 2011 rb
2011:DHC:7637