Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1933 (1.06 seconds)
Documents citing Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Etc. Etc vs U.O.I. & Ors. Etc. Etc on 8 April, 2004

Shree Rama Multi-Tech Ltd. And Anr. vs Asset Reconstruction Company (India) ... on 22 August, 2006

It is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India (supra), that some of the provisions may act harshly in some individual cases, but validity of the provisions cannot be doubted only on that basis. In the present case, the respondent has made it clear through the pleadings that no action under Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act of 2002 shall be taken without necessary agreement of the other secured creditor as required under Sub-section (9) of Section 13 of the Act of 2002.
Gujarat High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 11 - A Kureshi - Full Document

Bank Of Baroda, Dharampeth Branch, ... vs Paramount Conductors Ltd., Nagpur Thr. ... on 14 November, 2019

19. The contention pertaining to failure of the applicant- Bank to adhere to the mandatory requirement of section 26-D of the Securitization Act ought to have been rejected on the short ground that even if the same could be said to be applicable, it would still be a ground to show that action taken by the applicant- Bank under section 13(4) of the Securitization Act was not in consonance with the provisions of the Securitization Act and the Rules. This was clearly an aspect, which fell within the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of the said Act and consequently, under section 34 thereof, jurisdiction of the Civil Court would be barred. The interpretation placed by the Court below on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mardia Chemicals Limited and others v. Union of India and others (supra) is fallacious, because having noted that the Civil Court has very limited jurisdiction, the Court below went on to hold that in the facts of the present case, on a bare reading of the plaint, it could not be said that the suit filed by the KHUNTE ::: Uploaded on - 18/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 23:18:23 ::: 25/28 CRA173.18-Judgment respondent was not maintainable. A proper application of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, which had been reiterated in subsequent judgments, would show that the prayers made in the suit filed on behalf of the respondent, quoted above, clearly indicate that all the reliefs sought, pertained to measures taken by the applicant-Bank under section 13(4) of the Securitization Act, which fell within the purview of section 17 of the said Act. Therefore, the said reason given by the Court below is found to be unsustainable. That leaves this Court only with the contention of "fraud" to be dealt with. A bare perusal of the plaint and the prayers would show that the word "fraud" and "fraudulent" has been used without any iota of material to support such contention. The emphasis appears to be entirely on failure of the applicant-Bank to apply the relevant RBI circular, denial of restructuring of the loan and such pleadings according to the respondent have resulted in "fraud". The said pleadings seem to have been incorporated in the plaint only with a view to somehow claim that the Civil Court would have jurisdiction. This Court is of the opinion that mere use of words KHUNTE ::: Uploaded on - 18/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 23:18:23 ::: 26/28 CRA173.18-Judgment like "fraud" and "fraudulent" as a mantra cannot be permitted to foist jurisdiction on the Civil Court, which is specifically barred under section 34 of the Securitization Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document

M/S Deccan Chronicles Holdings Limited vs The Union Of India on 8 May, 2014

Learned counsels appearing for the petitioners submitted that issuing directions or guidelines relating to Asset Classification is essential legislative function and therefore it cannot be delegated. A delegate cannot formulate a policy. A delegated legislation, if exercised, is liable to be struck down as unconstitutional. The decisions rendered in Mardia Chemicals Limited and others Vs. Union of India and others, ((2004) 4 SCC 311) does not cover the issues raised in these writ petitions. The said decision cannot be termed as a binding precedent. The issues, which have not been decided on conscious consideration, cannot be termed as binding precedents. The observations made by the Supreme Court are obiter. Therefore, the said decision cannot be termed as a ratio decidendi. The guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India cannot be used for defining a "Non Performing Asset" under the SARFAESI Act. There has to be a separate legislation, as provided under Section 38 of the SARFAESI Act. Considering the rigour of Act No.54 of 2002, the definition of "Non Performing Asset" as mentioned in the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India cannot be imported. The High Court of Delhi has misconstrued itself on the scope and the decision rendered by the Supreme Court. The question of excessive delegation has not been considered by the Gujarat High Court. If there is no delegated legislation, then the doctrine of legislation by reference or incorporation would apply. Even in such a case, the subsequent decision made by way of Circular by the Reserve Bank of India cannot be made applicable. The word legally recoverable debt has not been defined in both Act No.54 of 2002 and Act No.51 of 1993. A mere liability cannot be termed as a 'debt'. Interest component cannot be added into a 'debt'.
Madras High Court Cites 69 - Cited by 5 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

Punjab National Bank vs Ms. Bharti Sehgal And Anr. on 2 November, 2017

Hence, the plea of the petitioner that the present suit is not maintainable under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act was rejected keeping in view the observations of the Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India(supra). Hence, the defendant/petitioner and respondent No.2 were restrained by way of temporary injunction from interfering in the peaceful possession of respondent No.1 in the suit property.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - J Nath - Full Document

Har Devi Asnani vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 27 September, 2011

We have perused the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in M/s Choksi Heraeus Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur v. State & Ors. (supra) and we find that the Division Bench has rightly taken the view that the decision of this Court in the case of Mardia Chemical Ltd. and Others vs. Union of India and Others (supra) is not applicable to the challenge to the proviso to Section 65(1) of the Act inasmuch as the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of 15 Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, requiring deposit of 75% of the demand related to deposit at the stage of first adjudication of the demand and was therefore held to be onerous and oppressive, whereas the proviso to Section 65(1) of the Act in the present case requiring deposit of 50% of the demand is at the stage of revision against the order of first adjudication made by the Collector and cannot by the same reasoning held to be onerous and oppressive. In our considered opinion, therefore, the proviso to Section 65(1) of the Act is constitutionally valid and we are therefore not inclined to interfere with the order dated 16.11.2009 in D.B.CWP No.14220 of 2009. The Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.20964 of 2010 is therefore dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - A K Patnaik - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Raizada vs The Bank Of Rajasthan & Anr on 9 December, 2013

17. The facts of the present case undoubtedly show that there is an arguable case of fraud having been done as there are various sale deeds floating for the same property. Prima facie it appears that Chander Prakash Aggarwal appears to have been in possession of two separate sale deeds for CS(OS) No. 1730/2010 Page 8 of 10 the same property and appears to have created separate mortgages in favour of defendant No. 1 and in favour of defendant No. 2 respectively. The plaintiff also claims ownership of the said suit property. There is another person by the name of Alok Gupta who also appears to be claiming title to the suit property. An FIR being FIR No. 88/2009 also appears to have been registered against the said Alok Gupta and appropriate proceedings are pending. Clearly, the facts of this case would fall within the exceptional category pointed by the Supreme Court in the case Mardia Chemicals vs. Union of India (supra). Hence, I hold that this Court would have the territorial jurisdiction to try the present case.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 7 - J Nath - Full Document

Har Devi Asnani vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 27 September, 2011

We have perused the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in M/s Choksi Heraeus Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur v. State & Ors. (supra) and we find that the Division Bench has rightly taken the view that the decision of this Court in the case of Mardia Chemical Ltd. and Others vs. Union of India and Others (supra) is not applicable to the challenge to the proviso to Section 65(1) of the Act inasmuch as the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, requiring deposit of 75% of the demand related to deposit at the stage of first adjudication of the demand and was therefore held to be onerous and oppressive, whereas the proviso to Section 65(1) of the Act in the present case 1. requiring deposit of 50% of the demand is at the stage of revision against the order of first adjudication made by the Collector and cannot by the same reasoning held to be onerous and oppressive. In our considered opinion, therefore, the proviso to Section 65(1) of the Act is constitutionally valid and we are therefore not inclined to interfere with the order dated 16.11.2009 in D.B.CWP No.14220 of 2009. The Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.20964 of 2010 is therefore dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 203 - A K Patnaik - Full Document

Onil Sadh vs Federal Bank Ltd. And Ors. on 6 November, 2015

12. We can now deal with the two contentions of the petitioner regarding constitutional validity of section 14 of the Act and challenge to the order of CMM dated 6.7.2015. As far as the challenge to the constitutional validity of section 14 is concerned reference may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. vs. Union of India (supra). In that case the Supreme Court was dealing with the validity of the SARFAESI Act. The Court struck down section 17(2) of the Act as ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Regarding the other provisions of the statute the Supreme Court held as follows:-
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 8 - J Nath - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next