- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
Edelweiss Moves Bombay High Court To Recover Dues From Dewan Housing Finance; Urges Appointment Of Receiver
[ By Bobby Anthony ]Edelweiss Asset Management has approached the Bombay High Court to recover its dues of around Rs 70 crore from Dewan Housing Finance Ltd (DHFL).The suit has come at a time when Reliance Nippon Life Asset Management has already approached the courts against DHFL.Edelweiss has sought the appointment of a court receiver and disclosure of all DHFL assets. It has also sought...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to 
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion

Edelweiss Asset Management has approached the Bombay High Court to recover its dues of around Rs 70 crore from Dewan Housing Finance Ltd (DHFL).
The suit has come at a time when Reliance Nippon Life Asset Management has already approached the courts against DHFL.
Edelweiss has sought the appointment of a court receiver and disclosure of all DHFL assets. It has also sought an injunction against paying any unsecured lender.
Edelweiss’s counsel stated that it has sought an injunction against from paying any unsecured lender. This is because DHFL used hypothecated receivables, which were in favor of Edelweiss and liquidated them in order to pay unsecured creditors.
Besides, Reliance AMC’s lawyer argued that his client is also a secured creditor and that DHFL failed to honor a check of Rs 200 crore. Reliance AMC has sought that amount (Rs 200 crore) from DHFL and doesn’t mind getting the remaining amount later on a pro-rata basis, the lawyer stated.
Incidentally, the case was originally filed by Reliance AMC on September 26 against DHFL to help recover about Rs 478 crore. The company has sought its dues after DHFL failed to pay against the non-convertible debentures (NCD) of which Reliance AMC was a subscriber.
DHFL’s lawyer had argued that it can’t pay Rs 200 crore to Reliance AMC because it has to first pay depositors and salaries, as directed by the court.


