REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA Appellant

V/S

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

ATTORNEY GENERAL V. MILNE [REFERRED TO]
V RAMASWAMI AIYENGAR VS. T N V KAILASA THEVAR [REFERRED TO]
RAMDHANDAS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
DAHYA LALA VS. RASUL MAHOMED ABDUL RAHIM [REFERRED TO]
SWAMI MOTOR TRANSPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED MOHAMED SHERIFF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MADRAS NEW THEATRES CARNATIC TALKIES VS. SANKARASWAMIGAL MUTT:HAZARATHI SYED SHAMAIN:SANKARASWAMIGAL MUTT:SANKARASWAMIGAL MUTT [REFERRED TO]
RAVAL AND CO VS. K G RAMACHANDRAN [REFERRED TO]
MAGANLAL CHHAGANLAL PRIVATE LIMITED PARWATIBAI PUNDALIK LEGAD UMAR HABIB BIBI BATOOL PARWATIBAI PUNDALIK LEGAD VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY:THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE CITY CIVIL COURTS:J R VIMADALAL:ENQUIRY OFFICER:THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE CITY CIVIL COURTS [REFERRED TO]
FATEHCHAND HIMMATLAL MAHADEO VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
PATHUMMA K M KUNHAHAMMAD VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES U P OTHERS VS. DEEP CHAND AGARWAL [REFERRED TO]
S SUNDARAM PILLAI KOUSALAYA DEVT MURUGESA MUDALIAR N S DHANALAKSHMI AMMAL THAHIRA BEEVI M BALAKRISHNAN K R KRISHNAN VS. V R PATTABIRAMAN:P LAKSHMINARAYANA CHARYA:SELVARAJ CHETTIAR:B S RAMACHARI:R A MUTHIAH NADAR:FATHIMA BAI:P BHANUMATT [REFERRED TO]
GURBACHAN SINGH VS. SATPAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
KANSHI RAM VS. LACHHMAN DEAD [REFERRED TO]
MARDIA CHEMICALS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
TRANSCORE VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ARVIND KUMAR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION VS. N NARASIMAHAIAH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. BHAJAN KAUR [REFERRED TO]
SUBHAS CHANDRA PANDA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
ASEENA VS. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have raised question of applicability of the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short the Act of 2002) for securitising the mortgaged assets secured for recovery of the financial assistance given by India bulls Housing Finance Limited (in short, IHFL) prior to the notification dated 19-9-2007 by the Central Government issued declaring IHFL a 'financial institution' under sub clause (iv) of clause (m)of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act of 2002.

(2.) The Act of 2002 was enacted to regulate Securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, w.e.f. 17-12-2002 replacing the Ordinance notified on 21-6-2002. A secured creditor under Section 2 (zd) is defined to mean any bank or financial institution or any consortium or group of banks or financial institutions and includes-

(3.) The financial institution is defined under Section 2 (m) of the Act to mean:-

Click here to view full judgment.

PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address