Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 2069 (1.29 seconds)
Documents citing Authorized Officer, State Bank Of ... vs Mathew K.C. on 30 January, 2018

The Chife Manager / Branch Manager vs Mahalingappa on 4 April, 2025

13.2 Applying the law laid down by this Court in Mathew K.C. [State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C., (2018) 3 SCC 85 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 41] to the facts on hand, we are of the opinion that filing of the writ petitions by the borrowers before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an abuse of process of the court. The writ petitions have been filed against the proposed action to be taken under Section 13(4). As observed hereinabove, even assuming that the communication dated 13-8-2015 was a notice under Section 13(4), in that case also, in view of the statutory, efficacious remedy available by way of appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petitions. Even the impugned orders passed by the High Court directing to maintain the status quo with respect to the possession of the secured properties on payment of Rs 1 crore only (in all Rs 3 crores) is absolutely unjustifiable. The dues are to the extent of approximately Rs 117 crores. The ad interim relief has been continued since 2015 and the secured creditor is deprived of proceeding further with the action under the SARFAESI Act. Filing of the writ petition by the borrowers before the High Court is nothing but an abuse
Karnataka High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - K Natarajan - Full Document

Mahalingappa vs Satish Rathod on 4 April, 2025

13.2 Applying the law laid down by this Court in Mathew K.C. [State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C., (2018) 3 SCC 85 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 41] to the facts on hand, we are of the opinion that filing of the writ petitions by the borrowers before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an abuse of process of the court. The writ petitions have been filed against the proposed action to be taken under Section 13(4). As observed hereinabove, even assuming that the communication dated 13-8-2015 was a notice under Section 13(4), in that case also, in view of the statutory, efficacious remedy available by way of appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petitions. Even the impugned orders passed by the High Court directing to maintain the status quo with respect to the possession of the secured properties on payment of Rs 1 crore only (in all Rs 3 crores) is absolutely unjustifiable. The dues are to the extent of approximately Rs 117 crores. The ad interim relief has been continued since 2015 and the secured creditor is deprived of proceeding further with the action under the SARFAESI Act. Filing of the writ petition by the borrowers before the High Court is nothing but an abuse
Karnataka High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - K Natarajan - Full Document

Ashokbhai Hasmukhlal Maniyar vs State Of Gujarat on 6 May, 2024

21. Applying the law laid down by this Court in Mathew K.C. [State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C., (2018) 3 SCC 85 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 41] to the facts on hand, we are of the opinion that filing of the writ petitions by the borrowers before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an abuse of process of the court. The writ petitions have been filed against the proposed action to be taken under Section 13(4). As observed hereinabove, even assuming that the communication dated 13-8-2015 was a notice under Section 13(4), in that case also, in view of the statutory, efficacious remedy available by way of appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petitions. Even the impugned orders passed by the High Court directing to maintain the status quo with respect to the possession of the secured properties on payment of Rs 1 crore only (in all Rs 3 crores) is absolutely unjustifiable. The dues are to the extent of approximately Rs 117 crores. The ad interim relief has been continued since 2015 and the secured creditor is deprived of proceeding further with the action under the SARFAESI Act. Filing of the writ petition by the borrowers before the High Court is nothing but an abuse of process of court. It appears that the High Court has initially granted an ex parte ad interim order mechanically and without assigning any reasons. The High Court ought to have appreciated that by passing such an Page 50 of 52 Downloaded on : Wed May 08 20:43:30 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16579/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2024 undefined interim order, the rights of the secured creditor to recover the amount due and payable have been seriously prejudiced. The secured creditor and/or its assignor have a right to recover the amount due and payable to it from the borrowers. The stay granted by the High Court would have serious adverse impact on the financial health of the secured creditor/assignor. Therefore, the High Court should have been extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion while granting stay in such matters. In these circumstances, the proceedings before the High Court deserve to be dismissed."
Gujarat High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Unnati Inorganics Private Limited vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 22 October, 2020

5.3 Further reliance is placed on the order in the case of Kankeshwari Agro Private Limited vs. Authorised Officer, Cosmos Cooperative Bank, rendered in Special Civil Application No.14114 of 2017 to contend that this Court, while noting the fact of taking over of possession as well as considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore vs. Mathew K.C., reported in (2018) 3 SCC 85, did not entertain the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative remedy available.
Gujarat High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 3 - S K Vishen - Full Document

Latif Yusuf Manikkoth vs The Board Of Direcotrs Of Bank Of Baroda ... on 20 July, 2023

Thus, in all the borrowers are directed to deposit Rs. 3 crores only against the dues of approximately Rs.117 crores. ......................................................................... 13.2. Applying the law laid down by this Court in Mathew K.C. [State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C., (2018) 3 SCC 85 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 41] to the facts on hand, we are of the opinion that filing of the writ petitions by the borrowers before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an abuse of process of the court. The writ petitions have been filed against the proposed action to be taken under Section 13(4). As observed hereinabove, even assuming that the communication dated 13-8-2015 was a notice under Section 13(4), in that case also, in view of the statutory, efficacious remedy available by way of appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petitions. Even the impugned orders passed by the High Court directing to maintain the status quo V.A. Tikam 16/18 ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2023 05:41:36 ::: WPL 9116 of 23.odt with respect to the possession of the secured properties on payment of Rs 1 crore only (in all Rs 3 crores) is absolutely unjustifiable. The dues are to the extent of approximately Rs 117 crores. The ad interim relief has been continued since 2015 and the secured creditor is deprived of proceeding further with the action under the SARFAESI Act. Filing of the writ petition by the borrowers before the High Court is nothing but an abuse of process of court. It appears that the High Court has initially granted an ex parte ad interim order mechanically and without assigning any reasons. The High Court ought to have appreciated that by passing such an interim order, the rights of the secured creditor to recover the amount due and payable have been seriously prejudiced. The secured creditor and/or its assignor have a right to recover the amount due and payable to it from the borrowers. The stay granted by the High Court would have serious adverse impact on the financial health of the secured creditor/assignor. Therefore, the High Court should have been extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion while granting stay in such matters. In these circumstances, the proceedings before the High Court deserve to be dismissed.
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document

Latif Yusuf Manikkoth vs The Board Of Direcotrs Of Bank Of Baroda on 20 July, 2023

Thus, in all the borrowers are directed to deposit Rs. 3 crores only against the dues of approximately Rs.117 crores. ......................................................................... 13.2. Applying the law laid down by this Court in Mathew K.C. [State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C., (2018) 3 SCC 85 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 41] to the facts on hand, we are of the opinion that filing of the writ petitions by the borrowers before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an abuse of process of the court. The writ petitions have been filed against the proposed action to be taken under Section 13(4). As observed hereinabove, even assuming that the communication dated 13-8-2015 was a notice under Section 13(4), in that case also, in view of the statutory, efficacious remedy available by way of appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petitions. Even the impugned orders passed by the High Court directing to maintain the status quo V.A. Tikam 16/18 ::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2023 05:41:42 ::: WPL 9116 of 23.odt with respect to the possession of the secured properties on payment of Rs 1 crore only (in all Rs 3 crores) is absolutely unjustifiable. The dues are to the extent of approximately Rs 117 crores. The ad interim relief has been continued since 2015 and the secured creditor is deprived of proceeding further with the action under the SARFAESI Act. Filing of the writ petition by the borrowers before the High Court is nothing but an abuse of process of court. It appears that the High Court has initially granted an ex parte ad interim order mechanically and without assigning any reasons. The High Court ought to have appreciated that by passing such an interim order, the rights of the secured creditor to recover the amount due and payable have been seriously prejudiced. The secured creditor and/or its assignor have a right to recover the amount due and payable to it from the borrowers. The stay granted by the High Court would have serious adverse impact on the financial health of the secured creditor/assignor. Therefore, the High Court should have been extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion while granting stay in such matters. In these circumstances, the proceedings before the High Court deserve to be dismissed.
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document

M/S G.A. Industries vs Bank Of Baroda, Authorised Officer on 29 August, 2019

13. Mr.Khare drew my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Another v. Mathew K. C. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 85 in support of his submission that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be loath in exercising such powers when there is an inbuilt extensive legislation of the SARFAESI Act which provides an alternative remedy. He also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of ICICI Bank Ltd. Etc. v. Umakanta Mohapatra etc.
Gujarat High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - B Vaishnav - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next