DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusCORPORATION BANK & ORS.
2025 INSC 116125 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had allotted a plot to Sarita Vihar Club under a lease that gave DDA a pre‑emptive right to purchase and required Lieutenant Governor’s consent for any mortgage. The Club mortgaged the plot to Corporation Bank without such consent, defaulted on the loan and the Bank sought recovery…
JAYKISHOR CHATURVEDI & ETC.versusSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
2025 INSC 84615 July 2025Dismissed
The appellants, promoter‑directors of a listed finance company, were found to have purchased shares in violation of SEBI's insider‑trading regulations and were penalised by an SEBI Adjudicating Officer on 28‑08‑2014. The penalty orders required payment within 45 days and were affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2019, afte…
NITIN GUNWANT SHAHversusINDIAN BANK & ORS.
2012 INSC 27510 July 2012Dismissed
The petitioner, Nitin Gunwant Shah, claimed to be a monthly tenant of a flat in Mumbai based on a 1989 "Leave and Licence" agreement and sought a declaration to that effect. The Indian Bank, holding a mortgage over the same property, obtained a decree for recovery of dues and sought to sell the flat, also asking the co…
MATHEW VARGHESEversusM. AMRITHA KUMAR & ORS.
[2014] 2 S.C.R. 73610 February 2014Disposed off
The case concerned the sale of a mortgaged property by a bank under the SARFAESI Act. The Supreme Court examined whether the bank, as a secured creditor, had complied with Section 13(8) of the Act and Rules 8 and 9, which require a 30‑day individual notice and a public notice before any sale. It held that the sale effe…
C.N. PARAMSIVAN & ANR.versusSUNRISE PLAZA TR. PARTNER & ORS.
2013 INSC 229 January 2013Dismissed
The appellants purchased a mortgaged property at a public auction conducted by a Recovery Officer under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDDB Act). The auction was later set aside by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the appellants were not bona‑fide purchas…