In Trans Asian Industries Exposition Private Limited v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited [29], the Court held that the expiry of the cumulative period of 30 days plus 30 days as provided for under the second and third provisos to Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFESI Act’) would not mean that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate would be rendered functus officio to pass any further orders in the proceedings. The Court further held that the said provisos were intended to ensure that the matters where taken up with utmost urgency and were not to be read in a manner which would defeat the spirit of the SARFESI Act itself.
In Canara Bank v. Leatheroid Plastics Private Limited [30], the Court reiterated that the parties are bound by the rate of interest agreed to between them along with the periodical rests and the Debt Recovery Tribunal (‘DRT’), would ordinarily not be justified in modifying the same till the date of filling of the application before it. It was noted, however, that for the period that the matter was pending before the DRT as also for the stipulation of interest for the future, the DRT has the requisite discretion and jurisdiction to fix a reasonable rate of interest considering the relevant facts and circumstances.
In Mayank Sharma v. Santhosh Sharma [31], the Court observed that once the suit property had been put to auction in furtherance of appropriate proceedings before the DRT, then an evidently collusive suit filed by a family member of the defendants seeking to demonstrate that the property in question was a Hindu Undivided Family (‘HUF’) property was liable to be rejected.
In Power Max (India) Private Limited v. Jindal Urban Waste Management (Guntur) Limited [32], the Court held that the mere fact that an unconditional bank guarantee incorporated the term ‘indemnified’ at a solitary instance could not convert the document into a letter of indemnification.
https://www.barandbench.com/columns/the-delhi-high-court-in-review-february-2020-part-i
