Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 87 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing Gujarat State Financial Corporation vs M/S. Natson Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd. & ... on 29 August, 1978

Maharashtra State Financial ... vs Jaycee Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Pvt. ... on 10 July, 1990

32. Sub-section (1) of section 31 plainly provides that the forum for filing petition under the said sub-section shall be according to the territorial jurisdiction of the District Judge. The situs or place of the business of the industrial concern shall determine the jurisdiction of the District Judge to entertain a petition of the Corporation for obtaining all or any of the reliefs mentioned in the four clauses of the said sub-sections (1). We have also already referred to the observations of the Supreme Court in the Case of Gujarat State Financial Corporations v. Natson Manufacturing Co. P. Ltd. [1979] 49 Comp Cas 187, that a proceeding under sections 31 and 32 was not in the nature of a money suit or a proceeding for recovery of money and the reliefs under section 31 are not capable of being valued in terms of monetary gain or loss. Therefore, it follows that the question of pecuniary value of an application made under section 31 is irrelevant. The future question whether the value of such an applications is unknown does not at all arise.
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - S P Bharucha - Full Document

State Industries Promotion ... vs M/S Conveyor Systems Private Limited on 18 September, 2013

34. The decision reported in 1979 1 SCC 193 (Gujarat State Financial Corporation vs Natson Manufacturing Co Pvt Ltd and others) cited by the learned Advocate General is not directly answering the question whether Article 136 or Art.137 of the Limitation Act is attracted. It only clarifies the position that an application filed under Sec.31(1) is neither a plaint nor an application the application under Section 31(1) is neither a plaint as contemplated by Article 1 of Schedule I nor an application in the nature of a plaint as contemplated by Article 7 of Schedule I of Court-fees Act.
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - A Ali - Full Document

Himachal Pradesh Financial ... vs Tourist Hotel And Restaurant And Ors. ... on 2 May, 1989

"If, as held by this court the proceeding instituted under Section 31(1) of the Act is something akin to an application for attachment of property in execution of a decree at a stage posterior to the passing of the decree no question of passing any order under Section 34 of the Code would arise since at the stage of the passing of the decree and not to any stage posterior to the decree. It may also be mentioned here that even under the Code the question of interest payable in mortgage suits filed in civil courts is governed by Order 34, Rule 11 of the Code and not by Section 34 of the Code which may be applicable only to cases of personal decrees passed under Order 34, Rule 6 of the Code. The High Court was right in holding that interest would be payable on the principal amount due in accordance with the terms of the agreement between the parties till the entire amount due was paid as per the order passed under Section 32 of the Act. We hold that the decision of the Karnataka High Court, referred to above, which has applied Section 34 of the Code to a proceeding instituted under Section 31(1) of the Act is not correctly decided."
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Calicut Steel Re-Rolling Co. Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Kerala Financial Corporation on 4 August, 1989

7. The Supreme Court in Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. Natson Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1978 SC 1765 ; [1979] 49 Comp Cas 187 has considered the nature of proceedings under Section 31 of the Act. Considering the nature of the reliefs the court can grant, the scope of investigation of the claim and scheme of the relevant provisions, the Supreme Court held that the claim to be investigated is not a monetary claim though it may be necessary to specify the sum of money for the purpose of determining how much of the security should be sold. But the investigation does not involve all the contentions that can be raised in a suit. The claim is not a money claim. Section 32(8) only prescribes the mode and method for executing the order of attachment or sale of property. The provisions do not render the application to be a suit between the mortgagee and the mortgagor. Repayment of loan is not the substantive relief claimed by the Corporation, though ultimately the amount due may be recovered. The substantive relief is something akin to the relief claimed in an application for attachment in execution of a decree at a stage posterior to the passing of a decree.
Kerala High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Bharat Chemical Works And Ors. vs Gujarat State Financial Corporation, ... on 17 August, 1982

17. We should not be understood as laying down however, that in an application under Section 31(1) it is open to the District Judge to decide all sorts of issues on merits. The parameters of the jurisdiction of the District Judge in such a proceeding are laid down in the decision in Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. Natson Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (AIR 1978 SC 1765) (supra). We have dealt with this contetention merely on the assumption that it was open to the learned District Judge to decide on merits all such issues.
Gujarat High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Hotel Nataraj And Others vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation ... on 19 April, 1988

24. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, relied on by Mr. Vijayashankar, succinctly states the purport of the decision in the earlier case, namely, Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. Natson Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd., , as laying down that a proceeding under section 31(1) of the Act was akin to a proceeding resulting in the attachment of property prior to the stage of the passing of a decree which ratio leads, as pointed out by Mr. Sundaraswamy for the appellant, to the further inference that at any rate in relation to the subsequent stages of an order made with reference to an application under section 31(1) of the Act, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code regulating the procedure can availed of. It is pointed out that the two decisions of the Supreme Court cited supra did not lay down anything contrary and enact a bar, if any, in availing of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code in general and the ban, if any, was only as regards regulation of the substantive rights of the parties. It may well be that the two decisions of the Supreme Court can confined to the principle that having regard to the nature of the application under section 31(1) of the Act, and the mode of disposal under section 32 of the Act, it is not open or possible to rely on the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code in regard to regulation of substantive rights.
Karnataka High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Sri Murali Panchapakesan vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation on 23 December, 2020

11. Similarly, the decision relied upon by 'GUJARAT STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION VS. NATSON MANUFACTURING CO. PVT. LTD AND ORS.', AIR 1978 SC 1765, 'PRAKASH PLAYING CARDS MANUFACTURING CO., DELHI AND ORS. VS. DELHI FINANCIAL CORPORATION , NEW DELHI', AIR 1980 DEL 48, supra have no application to the fact situation of the case, as in the aforesaid decisions, amended provisions of section 31(1) of the Act have not been noticed.
Karnataka High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next