Hari Om Traders v. State Bank of India
Case brief
What is this about?
This order records the hearing on applications for amendment, condonation of delay, and stay regarding SARFAESI proceedings. Counsel were heard on conflicting timelines of demand notices and the validity of auction procedures before the matter was reserved for order. No final decision was delivered.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CONTD. oRDER.SHEET
| DATE | DESCRIPTIONOFTHE ORDER | REMARK | |
|---|---|---|---|
| SA899 0st0y2 2 |
ShriR.M.Mishra,AdvfortheApplicant ShriPraveen Chaturvedi,Advfor Respondent |
the | |
| 1.Matteristakenupforhearingon No.6273123applicationforamendment, No.6274123applicationforcondonation delayandIANo.6275123 applicationfor toorderdated30/10/23passedbytheA Narmadapuram. 2.ApplicantCounsel submitsthat toquash auction noticedated06/10/22Ann.A-land proceedingsinitiated u/sl3ofthesarfaesi thisSA is filedon27110122whichiswi time. |
IA IA of ay M he all ct ln |
||
| 3.ApplicantCounselfurtherbyinvit attentiononorderdated 30/10/23passed theADMNarmadapuramsubmitsthat challengedtheorderapplication amendmentisfiledon2lll2l23whichisso delayedforcondoningthedelayofeightd anapplication forcondonationofdelay isfil on theground thatrnotherofApplicantwas andtakingtreatment therefore eightdaysde occurredtofilethis applicationforamendm andapplicationforcondonationofthesame. |
o5 v to or d il v t S |
||
| 4.Sofarapplicationforstayisconcern ApplicantCounsel submits that thereis glari illegalitiesontheproceeding initiated by withdrawingearlierdemandnoticesdat 25ll0l2land03101122haswronglyissu Respondent-Banksinceonexistenceofearli demandnotice theRespondent-Bankwitho |
o d d e r 1 d |
CONTD. OR D ER.SHEET
PAGE No
CASE No
| DATE | DESCRIPTION OF THE ORDER | REMARK |
|---|---|---|
| subsequentdemandnoticedated27104122on whichbasistheapplicationu/sl4ofthe sarfaesiacthas beenfiledand orderunder challengedhasbeenobtained. 5.ApplicantCounselfurthersubmitsthat sinceorderisab-initiovoidontheground mentionedundertheapplicationfor amendmentorderisalso challengedandprays forallowingapplicationforamendmentand applicationforstay. 6.ApplicantCounselbyplacingrelianceon authorityofHon'bleDRATDelhiundera case ofKotak MahindraBankv/sAllIndiaSociety reported(2023)IBC1. 7.OnotherhandRespondentCounselby invitingattention atPage-6ofreplyatPara-5 submitsthat earlierdemandnoticeshavebeen withdrawnthereaftersubsequentdemand noticedated27I04122wasissued. 9.RespondentCounselfurthersubmitsthat sinceearlierdemand noticeshavealreadybeen withdrawn thensubsequentdemandnoticeis legalone obtained. onwhichbasisorder hasbeen 8.RespondentCounselfurtherbyinviting attentionon Ann,R-4at Para'!2submitsthat byissuingsubsequentdemandnotice Applicantshave alreadyintimatedthatearlier demandnoticeshavebeenwitlidrawnivith immediateeffect. |
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application for amendment and condonation of delay should be allowed given the conflicting timeline of prior and subsequent demand notices.
Whether the subsequent issuance of a demand notice invalidates the applicability of earlier withdrawn notices for initiating auction proceedings.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Applicant
- respondent
Respondent-Bank
Coram
Ram Nilyas Patel
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court