Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 65 (2.73 seconds)
Documents citing Keshavlal Khemchand And Sons Pvt Ltd And ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 28 January, 2015

Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 25 October, 2023

151. Lastly, I may now refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Keshavlal Khemchand & Sons Pvt. Ltd. others vs. Union of India & others, (2015) 4 SCC 770. The issue raised in this case was whether defining the conditions, subject to which creditor could classify an account as NPA, is a part of an essential legislative function, which could not be delegated to regulatory bodies, and the said delegation amounts to excessive delegation of legislative function. The Supreme Court negated this contention, and held as follows:-
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 232 - Cited by 0 - R Maithani - Full Document

Hongkong Andshanghai Banking Corp. Ltd vs Awaz on 20 December, 2024

Keshav Lal Khemchang & Sons Pvt. Ltd & Ors. Vs Union of India [supra] 4 Union of India Vs Prakash P. Hinduja [2003] 6 SCC 195 Civil Appeal No. 5273 of 2008 Page 11 of 44 "Credit card dues are in the nature of non-priority sector personal loans, and as such, banks are free to determine the rate of interest on credit card dues without reference to their BPLR and regardless of the size"
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - B M Trivedi - Full Document

Shaikh Zahid Mukhtar vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 6 May, 2016

85. The learned Advocate General submitted that there is no requirement of law that the statement of Objects and Reasons must be 48 (2006)3 SCC 549 49 (1986)3 SCC 20 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2016 00:01:37 ::: ash 85 fleshmatter draft 5 restricted in the Bill and the law that may be followed. Relying upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Keshavlal Khemchand & Sons v. Union of India, he urged that if the enactment is otherwise within the constitutionally permissible limits, the fact that there was a divergence between the objects appended to the Bill and the tenor of the Act cannot be a ground for declaring the law as unconstitutional.
Bombay High Court Cites 161 - Cited by 2 - A Oka - Full Document

Haresh M. Jagtiani vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 May, 2016

85. The learned Advocate General submitted that there is no requirement of law that the statement of Objects and Reasons must be 48 (2006)3 SCC 549 49 (1986)3 SCC 20 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2016 00:02:19 ::: ash 85 fleshmatter draft 5 restricted in the Bill and the law that may be followed. Relying upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Keshavlal Khemchand & Sons v. Union of India, he urged that if the enactment is otherwise within the constitutionally permissible limits, the fact that there was a divergence between the objects appended to the Bill and the tenor of the Act cannot be a ground for declaring the law as unconstitutional.
Bombay High Court Cites 161 - Cited by 0 - A Oka - Full Document

Shukan Orchid Infrastructure vs Union Of India on 26 October, 2015

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R On behalf of the petitioner, a prayer has been made to withdraw the writ petition on the ground that the matter already stands covered by the Judgment of this Court rendered on 28th January, 2015 in the case of Keshavlal Khemchand and Sons Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2015(4)SCC770.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - S K Singh - Full Document

Anuj Jain Interim Resolution ... vs Axis Bank Limited on 26 February, 2020

25.7. The submissions that security was disclosed in the Annual Reports or that none of the creditors expressed dissent are of no effect because such disclosure or want of objection by creditors, by themselves, do not operate as estoppel against anybody nor would take the transaction out of the purview of the legal fiction predicated in Section 43, if it is otherwise of a preference at a relevant time. Similarly, the distinction between ‘NPA’ and ‘wilful default’; the submission that NPA could be regularised; and further the submission that the mortgages were created before JIL was declared NPA, are hardly of any bearing on the question as to whether the impugned transactions had been in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of JIL. Thus, reference to the decisions like that in Keshavlal Khemchand and Jah Developers (supra) is not of any consequence and need not be dilated upon. The answer to this question, in our view, could only be in the negative. That is to say that the impugned transactions had not been in the ordinary course of business or financial affairs of JIL.
Supreme Court of India Cites 125 - Cited by 93 - D Maheshwari - Full Document

Internet And Mobile Association Of ... vs Reserve Bank Of India on 4 March, 2020

6.91. It is ironical that virtual currencies which took avatar (according to its creator Satoshi) to kill the demon of a central authority (such as RBI), seek from the very same central authority, access to banking services so that the purpose of the avatar is accomplished. As we have pointed out elsewhere, the very creation of digital currency/ Bitcoin was to liberate the monetary system from being a slave to the central authority and from being operated in a manner prejudicial to private interests. Therefore, the ultra vires argument cannot be accepted when the provision of access to banking services without any interference from the central authority over a long period of time is perceived as a threat to the very existence of the central authority. Hence, we hold that RBI has the requisite power to regulate or prohibit an activity of this nature. If at all, the power is only to regulate, not prohibit 6.92. The next contention that if at all, RBI is conferred only with the power to regulate, but not to prohibit, as seen from the express language of Section 45JA of the RBI Act, does not appeal to us. In Star India Pvt. ltd. v. Dept. of Industrial Policy and 110 Promotion and Ors.,63 this court opined that the word “regulate” has a very broad meaning including the power to prohibit. The following passage from K. Ramanathan v. State of Tamil Nadu64 was quoted in Star India (supra):
Supreme Court of India Cites 128 - Cited by 53 - V Ramasubramanian - Full Document

Arshad Ispat vs Union Of India on 29 May, 2020

Insofar as the other limb of the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the declaration made by the fifth respondent declaring the account/assets of the petitioners NPA, the Apex Court in the case of Keshavlal Khemchand (supra) has clearly opined that the borrower cannot be heard to complain that defining of the conditions subject to which the creditor could classify the account as NPA, is part of the essential legislative function. The argument regarding excessive delegation was rejected as untenable. Moreover, the petitioners having failed to raise the issue when it could have done so in its previous writ petition i.e., W.P.Nos.9687-89/2017, the petitioners are estopped from raising such an issue subsequently. In this regard, the law is well settled that the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of CPC is applicable to writ proceedings also and when a party could have raised an issue and having failed to raise 15 such an issue, cannot be permitted to raise such an issue subsequently in another proceeding. It is to be noticed that in W.P.Nos.9687-89/2017, the petitioners questioned the sale proceedings initiated by the fourth respondent-Bank. Obviously the account/assets of the petitioners were declared NPA and thereafter the Bank has proceeded in accordance with law and the sale proceedings having been challenged by the petitioners in the year 2016-2017, this issue could have been raised, but, the petitioners have failed to do so. Even in these proceedings, it is only at the last moment that an application for additional prayer was made by the petitioners regarding the correctness of the classification of petitioners account/asset as NPA. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any such relief.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - R Devdas - Full Document

Arshad Ispat vs Union Of India on 10 July, 2020

11. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the respondents would contend that the issues raised in the instant appeal are all covered by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of ITC LIMITED (supra) and 11 KESHAVLAL KHEMCHAND (supra). It is further contended that the appellants having failed to urge all the points available at the earliest point of time when they filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.9687-89/2017 which were disposed of on 20.2.2009, against the very same the appellants cannot be permitted to raise the issues left over earlier in a subsequent petition against the same parties and the same cause of action.
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next