Search Results for "One Time Settlement"

20 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 20 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Reiterates: Statutory Remedies Must Be Exhausted in SARFAESI Disputes. When alternative statutory remedies exist, courts should not entertain writ petitions under Article 226.

The Supreme Court dealt with the legality of a High Court's interference in an auction sale under the SARFAESI Act, despite the availability of an alt...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Consumer Protection Case, Reversing NCDRC's Dismissal on Consumer Status. Overdraft Facility Availed by Stockbroker for Business Qualifies as Consumer Service Under Exception for Self-Employment Livelihood in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The appeal arose from a judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissing a consumer complaint on the ground that the...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Bank's Appeal Against High Court's Mandamus to Consider OTS Application. Court Holds That No Writ of Mandamus Can Be Issued to Direct a Bank to Grant One Time Settlement Benefit Under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The present appeal arises from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court which, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, iss...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Appeal in IBC Limitation Dispute — Application Under Section 7 Held Barred by Limitation. Acknowledgment of Debt in Balance Sheets Does Not Extend Limitation for Initiating CIRP Under IBC.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Babulal Vardharji Gurjar, a director of Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd., against the order of...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Remands Case to High Court for Fresh Adjudication in Loan Dispute Between Financial Corporation and Borrower. Consent Settlement Does Not Bar Examination of Actual Liability; High Court Must Decide on Merits.

The case involves a dispute between Punjab Financial Corporation (appellant) and M/s Paulbro Leathers Pvt. Ltd. (respondent) regarding a loan taken by...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Upholds NCLAT Decision on Mandatory 75% Voting Share for Resolution Plan Approval Under I&B Code. Financial Creditors' Rejection of Resolution Plan for Kamineni Steel & Power India Pvt. Ltd. and Innoventive Industries Ltd. Leads to Liquidation as Plan Did Not Garner Required Majority.

The Supreme Court of India heard appeals arising from a common judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) dated 6 September 2018,...