Prudeta
Prudeta
2026 INSC 237
The appellant purchased properties through an auction conducted by the Recovery Officer in 2010, pursuant to an order by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The original writ petition was filed by guarantors seeking to quash the DRAT's order which affirmed the DRT's order and the auction proceedings. The properties were mortgaged by respondents to secure an 'at par facility' granted by Indian Bank to another respondent. The bank initiated recovery proceedings before the DRT, which led to the auction sale where the appellant was the highest bidder. The DRAT initially remanded the case to the DRT, but later dismissed the appeal, affirming the DRT's order and the auction sale, protecting the third-party bidder's interest. The High Court upheld the DRT and DRAT's conclu
The bench further analyzed the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions and discussed the interpretation of Articles 14 and 21 in light of recent precedents...
Citing the ratio in prior decisions, the court held that the legislative intent was to ensure...
No credit card required · 14-day free trial