Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (1.85 seconds)
Documents citing Federal Bank Ltd vs Sagar Thomas & Ors on 26 September, 2003

C.B.I.,Bank Securities & Fraud Cell vs Ramesh Gelli . on 23 February, 2016

In Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas and others (supra) this Court has held that a private company carrying banking business as a scheduled bank cannot be termed as a company carrying any statutory or public duty. However, in said case the Court was examining as to whether writ can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a scheduled bank or not. There was no issue before the Court relating to deeming fiction contained in Section 46A of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 in respect of a chairman/managing director or director of a banking company against whom 20 a crime relating to anti-corruption was registered.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 51 - Cited by 51 - R Gogoi - Full Document

Management vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 24 November, 2016

19. Though in this regard, in Federal Bank case, referred supra, it has been clearly mandated as to what are all the situations in which such a direction could be issued for compliance of mandatory provisions or the legal provisions that is one aspect. So far as injuncting a particular person through a writ of mandamus is purely a civil remedy, which according to the Management, has to be addressed before the Industrial forum, constituted for such purpose. In the circumstances, though when the learned single Judge has rightly ordered for adjudication of the dispute by the Industrial Forum, the extension of interim direction not to take any coercive action till the matter is adjudicated by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, appears to be purely under necessity, in the factual matrix of the case.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Management vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 24 November, 2016

19. Though in this regard, in Federal Bank case, referred supra, it has been clearly mandated as to what are all the situations in which such a direction could be issued for compliance of mandatory provisions or the legal provisions that is one aspect. So far as injuncting a particular person through a writ of mandamus is purely a civil remedy, which according to the Management, has to be addressed before the Industrial forum, constituted for such purpose. In the circumstances, though when the learned single Judge has rightly ordered for adjudication of the dispute by the Industrial Forum, the extension of interim direction not to take any coercive action till the matter is adjudicated by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, appears to be purely under necessity, in the factual matrix of the case.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Alpha Helical Pumps Pvt Ltd vs The Federal Bank Limited on 14 March, 2016

7. The learned counsel for the third respondent also relied on the the very same decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of (Federal Bank Limited vs. Sagar Thomas and others) AIR 2003 SC 4325 = (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 733, which was also relied on by the counsel for the first respondent, wherein it has been held that a private company carrying on banking business as a scheduled bank, cannot be termed as an institution or a company carrying on any statutory or public duty. A private bank or a person may be amenable to writ jurisdiction only where it may become necessary to compel such body or association to enforce any statutory obligations or such obligations of public nature. When such conditions are not fulfilled in respect of a private company carrying on a commercial activity of banking, merely regulatory provisions have been made to ensure such activity carried on private bodies work within a discipline, it will not be a ground to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India against such private banks. As regards the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that the dispute between the parties is pending between the Company Law Board and the petitioner has to work out his remedy only before the Company Law Board. The writ petition is therefore not maintainable before this Court. Therefore, the learned counsel for the third respondent would strenuously contend that the writ petition filed by the petitioner as against the first respondent is not maintainable and he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R Subbiah - Full Document

M/S.Mercury Transports vs The Secretary To Government on 26 July, 2016

8 In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 4 and 6 and in view of the decisions cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is not maintainable. The respondent Bank, being a private entity, does not fall under the definition of "the State", under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The decision of the Supreme Court, in Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. Sagar Thomas and others lends support to the said proposition. Further, a contract, entered into between the petitioner and the respondent Bank, cannot be enforced, amended or modified, by the directions issued by this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition is not maintainable. Hence the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - M Jaichandren - Full Document

M/S.New Concrete India Private Ltd vs The Reserve Bank Of India on 28 July, 2016

8. In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3 and in view of the decisions cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is not maintainable. The respondent Bank, being a private entity, does not fall under the definition of "the State", under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The decision of the Supreme Court, in Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. Sagar Thomas and others, lends support to the said proposition. Further, a contract, entered into between the petitioner and the second and third respondents Bank, cannot be enforced, amended or modified, by the directions issued by this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition is not maintainable. Hence the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - M Jaichandren - Full Document

Manoj Ambaram Kahar vs Indian Red Cross Society & 2 on 12 July, 2016

And in para 40, the Supreme Court had noted that in Federal  Bank Ltd. (supra), it was also held, such a private body should either run  substantially   on   State   funding   or   discharge   public   duty/positive  obligation of public nature or is under liability to discharge any function  under any Statute to compel it to perform such a statutory function. The  Supreme Court in that case has held that ICID the respondent does not  discharge any public function/duty and the impugned action does not  involve public law element.
Gujarat High Court Cites 71 - Cited by 5 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Hari Prakash S P vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 December, 2016

3. Mr. S.N. Murthy, the learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6, has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present writ 28 petition. Relying on the case of Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas and Others [ (2003) 10 SCC 733], the learned Senior Counsel has pleaded that while respondent No. 5 is a Society, respondent No. 6 is a Private College run by the Telugu speaking minority community. Therefore, a writ would not lie either to respondent No. 5, or to respondent No. 6. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable.
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - R S Chauhan - Full Document

Vartika Roseline Claudius [ In Chamber ... vs Birla Sun Lief Insurance Company Ltd. ... on 8 April, 2016

It referred to the earlier decision in the case of Federal Bank vs. Sagar Thamas reported in (2003) 10 SCC 733, in para 40, wherein the Court had culled out the categories of body/persons who would be amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court. One such category was a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature.
Allahabad High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - R Roy - Full Document
1   2 3 Next