Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing Tinu Thomas vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on 9 November, 2015

Wadakkanchery Silk Garden Private ... vs The Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd on 24 May, 2023

10. The SARFAESI Act is a very harsh legislation 13. I have held earlier in Vinu Thomas (supra) that under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, the bank/financial institution is the claimant, the adjudicator and the executioner. Practically, the only remedy open to a person aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by the bank is to make an application to the Tribunal, having jurisdiction, under the provisions of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Considering the drastic nature of the powers conferred on the banks/financial
Kerala High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - P Gopinath - Full Document

Molly Joseph vs Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Ltd on 5 July, 2024

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent bank, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to some relief in the present writ petition going by the law laid down by this court in Vinu Thomas (supra). The Tribunal could not have held that the securitization application filed by the petitioner W.P (C) No.33092/2022 -7- was filed beyond the period of limitation. I also find considerable merit in the contention taken by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that since the Tribunal had already found that the application was barred by limitation, the observations on merits in Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal cannot be seen as findings on the merits of the claim before the Tribunal especailly taking into account the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioenr that the petitioner never addressed any arguments on the merits before the Tribunal and the Tribunal merely rejected the application on the ground that it was barred by limitation. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. Exhibit P6 is quashed. The securitization application filed by the petitioner shall be treated as one filed in time. The securitization application filed by the petitioner will thus stand restored to the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam. The Tribunal shall consider the application in accordance with the law and take a decision in the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all affected parties.
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - P Gopinath - Full Document

Sreelatha.L vs 1. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd on 28 January, 2026

In Tinu Thomas (supra), cited by the learned Counsel for the Respondents, the location advertised was Mananthavady. The showroom offered by the Applicant for LPG Distributorship was in Valliyoorkavu. The contention of the Applicant was that Valliyoorkavu Village comes within Mananthavady Grama Panchayat. The Oil Marketing Company contended that Valliyoorkavu is 4 km away from Mananthavady town and that when the location is clearly stated as Mananthavady and the Notification does not refer to any identification based on the WP(C) No. 36434 of 2024 15 2026:KER:6417 revenue district or the revenue bifurcation such as Taluk, Panchayat, etc., the Applicant cannot be allowed to interpret any clause in the Notification for his convenience and that the Applicant will have to strictly adhere to the conditions mentioned in the Notification inviting Applications for distributorship. The Division Bench of this Court held that the Oil Marketing Company is the best judge as to how the service can be made more effective, including selecting the proper locations for the proposed showrooms; that it is purely a matter of policy and not liable to be interfered with by the Court, especially when there is no allegation of any mala fide on the part of the Respondents. This Court rejected the claim of the Applicant, finding that the specified location is a must to award the LPG distributorship, as the location is specifically stated as Mananthavady, and it is not open for the Applicant to show his place of showroom as Valliyoorkavu on the ground that it comes within the jurisdiction WP(C) No. 36434 of 2024 16 2026:KER:6417 of Mananthavady Grama Panchayat. In this decision, the attempt was from the side of the Applicant to add an additional condition to the Advertisement. This Court has accepted the stand of the Oil Marketing Company that when the Notification does not refer to any identification on the basis of revenue district or revenue bifurcation, etc., the Applicant cannot interpret any clause in the notification for his convenience. If the said principle is applied in the present case, the Oil Marketing Company cannot add the identification with reference to revenue bifurcation like 'Village' to the description in the Advertisement to non-suit the Petitioner. In view of the principle laid down in the said decision, it is the location with respect to the name of the place mentioned in the Advertisement is relevant. In the said decision, the place advertised was Mananthavady, and the showroom offered by the Applicant was in the place Valliyoorkavu. Of course, the identification of WP(C) No. 36434 of 2024 17 2026:KER:6417 location is a policy matter of the Oil Marketing Company. But once the location is identified and the same is described in the Advertisement, the Oil Marketing Company cannot deviate from the same to the detriment and prejudice of the Applicants who submitted the Applications relying on the representations in the Advertisement. Hence, the said decision will not in any way support the contentions of the Respondents. But it supports the contentions of the Petitioner, as the attempt to identify the location with reference to the name of the Panchayat is not permitted by this Court.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1