toto togel 4d situs toto togel situs togel slot deposit pulsa slot gacor 4d data keluaran hk

I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd. vs. Krishna Kumar & Anr.

38.00 3.80

Guaranteed Safe Checkout
Spread the knowledge

Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Act, 2002–Sec. 17(4)–Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001–Secs. 18 & 21–Code of Civil Procedure, 1908–Order 7, Rule 11–After the application u/s. 14 of SARFAESI Act was allowed, tenant in property in question moved the application u/ss. 18 & 21 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, with contending that the petitioner-Bank can not dispossess him–Application by petitioner-Bank under Order 7, Rule 11 on the ground that he is planted tenant and he should approach u/s. 17(4) of SARFAESI Act–Rejection of application–Justification–Section 18 of Rent Act pertains only to the disputes between the land-lord and tenant–If the provision is invoked, the secured creditor would be rendered totally remediless the secure the possession of property–Further, after the judgment of Vishal N. Kalsaria, sub-section (4-A) has been incorporated and sub-section (3) has been substituted–Therefore, the above judgment cannot be applied and if the tenant is aggrieved with the order of seeking possession,he should invoke the provisions of Sec. 17(4-A)–Application under Order 7, Rule 11 deserves to be allowed.