Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.28 seconds)

State Of Himachal Pradesh vs The Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery ... on 28 April, 2023

39. Pertinently, the High Court while seized of the writ petition of PNB was not at all concerned with the SARFAESI Act as such. The matter had travelled to the High Court from proceedings under the DRT Act. There was, thus, no occasion for the High Court to pronounce on the validity of section 16-B of the HPGST Act based on what was held by its coordinate Bench in M/s A.J. Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The High Court, in our considered view, was therefore in clear error.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - D Datta - Full Document

Unknown vs State Of H.P. And on 21 November, 2017

Chauhan, Law Officer, for the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contention as raised in the appeal has placed reliance upon the Division Bench Judgement in CWP No. 306 of 2007 titled M/s A.J. Infrastructures vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 7th September, 2007. A copy of the said judgment is placed on record and the same was also supplied to the respondents.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - T S Chauhan - Full Document
1