Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 859 (2.42 seconds)
Documents citing Federal Bank Ltd vs Sagar Thomas & Ors on 26 September, 2003

Keshav Datt vs South Asian University on 23 January, 2024

"17. We shall reiterate the position of law regarding the interference of the High Courts in matters pertaining to the SARFAESI Act by quoting a few of the earlier decisions of this Court wherein the said practice has been deprecated while requesting the High Courts not to entertain such cases. • Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas, (2003) 10 SCC 733, "18. From the decisions referred to above, the position that emerges is that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintainable against (i) the State (Government); (ii) an authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an instrumentality or agency of the State; (v.) a company which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a private body run substantially on State funding; (vii) a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature; and (viii) a person or a body under liability to discharge any function under any statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory function.
Delhi High Court Cites 91 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document

Uttam Chand Rawat vs State Of U.P. And 7 Others on 4 October, 2021

Prior to the judgment aforesaid, the Apex Court had considered the same issue in the case of Federal Bank Ltd. versus Sagar Thomas and others, (2003) 10 SCC 333. The judgment aforesaid was given after considering the nature of work performed by the Federal Bank. The argument was raised that not only Bank was incorporated under the Companies Act but is governed by regulatory provisions of banking. The Apex Court did not accept the argument on maintainability of the writ petition merely for the reason that the authority or the person was incorporated under the Companies Act and is governed by the regulatory provisions. It was held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable against following; (i) the State (Government); (ii) an authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an instrumentality or agency of the State; (v) a company which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a private body run substantially on State funding; (vii) a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature; and (viii) a person or a body under liability to discharge any function under any statute with compulsion to perform statutory function. The writ petition therein was not held maintainable merely for the reason that Bank was incorporated under the Companies Act and otherwise governed by the regulatory provisions which may be Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. The Apex Court did not find State dominance or control over the affairs of the company. The relevant paras of the said judgment are quoted hereunder for ready reference :-
Allahabad High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 7 - P Padia - Full Document

Dr. Snehashish Bhattacharya & Ors. vs South Asian University on 23 January, 2024

• Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas, (2003) 10 SCC 733, "18. From the decisions referred to above, the position that emerges is that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintainable against (i) the State (Government); (ii) an authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an instrumentality or agency of the State; (v.) a company which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a private body run substantially on State funding; (vii) a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature; and (viii) a person or a body under liability to discharge any function under any statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory function.
Delhi High Court Cites 88 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document

Gopal Prasad Varshney vs Bank Of Rajasthan Ltd. on 10 January, 2005

6. The petitioner has prayed for enforcement of his rights under Regulation and has claimed certain benefits. However, the main issue is whether the same relief can be granted by this court in the present writ petition. Three Hon'ble Judges of this court having taken different views as to whether the respondent- Bank is a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas and Ors. (supra), and there been views of other High Courts also holding the private Bank not amenable to the writ jurisdiction, in my opinion as also in the interest of justice, it will be proper that the whole controversy in regard to respondent-Bank be decided by a Larger Bench.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 8 - Cited by 13 - A K Parihar - Full Document

Ionic Metalliks & 3 vs Union Of India & 3 on 9 September, 2014

Applying the test nos.1 and 2 to the facts of the case on hand, no materials have been placed on record to even remotely indicate that the share capital of the bank is held by Page 93 of 162 C/SCA/645/2014 CAV JUDGEMENT the Central Government or the State Government, or the bank is dependent upon the Government for financial assistance. There is nothing to even remotely suggest that the Standard Chartered Bank enjoys any monopoly status conferred by the State. With regard to the fourth test, there is nothing to indicate existence of "deep and pervasive State control". All that can be said is that the directives of the Reserve Bank of India are binding on the bank. With regard to the fifth test, although it has been very vociferously submitted by Mr.Shelat, the learned appearing on behalf of the petitioners, that the functions of the bank are of public importance and further the bank could be said to be discharging a public function which is akin to a Governmental function, yet this argument pales into insignificance in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Federal Bank Limited v. Sagar Thomas and others, (2003)10 SCC 733.
Gujarat High Court Cites 147 - Cited by 19 - A Kureshi - Full Document

Delhi Golf Club Employees Union vs Union Of India And Ors on 19 April, 2021

35. As has been held in Federal Bank Ltd. [Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas, (2003) 10 SCC 733] solely because a private company carries on banking business, it cannot be said that it would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction. The Apex Court has opined that the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act and other statutes have the regulatory measure to play.
Delhi High Court Cites 86 - Cited by 1 - J Singh - Full Document

Air Vice Marshal J.S. Kumar vs Governing Council Of Air Force And Anr. on 2 January, 2006

18. From the decisions referred to above, the position that emerges is that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintainable against (i) the State (Govt.); (ii) Authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an instrumentality or agency of the State; (v) a company which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a private body run substantially on State funding; (vii) a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature; (viii) a person or a body under liability to discharge any function under any Statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory function.'` Ultimately the Court held (vide para 33):
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 7 - M Katju - Full Document

The South Indian Bank vs M/S. Pdmc Industries on 12 December, 2025

In paragraph 17 of the decision, the Apex Court reiterated the position of law regarding the interference of the High Courts in matters pertaining to the SARFAESI Act by quoting its earlier decisions in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas [(2003) 10 SCC 733], United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon [(2010) 8 SCC 110], State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [(2018) 3 SCC 85], Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir [(2022) 5 SCC 345] and Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. Sreenivasulu [(2023) 2 SCC 168] wherein the said practice has been deprecated while requesting the High Courts not to entertain such cases. In paragraph 18 of the said decision, the Apex Court observed that the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are rather wide, but are required to be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances in matters 2025:KER:95432 W.A.No.2281 of 2025 36 pertaining to proceedings and adjudicatory scheme qua a statute, more so in commercial matters involving a lender and a borrower, when the legislature has provided for a specific mechanism for appropriate redressal.
Kerala High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - A Narendran - Full Document

Dr.Ms.T.Mohanashree vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 August, 2025

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:52:56 pm ) W.P.Nos.15910, 18109 and 20193 of 2025 and Rev.Aplw.No.178 of 2025 The respondent's service with the Bank stands terminated. The action of the Bank was challenged by the respondent by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondent is not trying to enforce any statutory duty on the part of the Bank.’ (Federal Bank case [Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas, (2003) 10 SCC 733] , SCC pp. 758-59, para 33)
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next