Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 152 (1.09 seconds)
Documents citing Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd. on 5 January, 2023

Pradeep Kumar Bisnnoi vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 February, 2025

17.1. This Court further observes that both these provisions which expound different requisites contain non obstante clauses respectively, which ousts the applicability of the other Statute and corresponding relevant provisions within it. Therefore, for resolving the controversy at hand, it becomes pertinent to first answer the question as to which out of the two provisions will prevail if both of them have a non obstante clause. 17.2. This Court in this regard, observes that as per the judgment rendered in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (supra), the position of law is that, when two enactments have competing non obstante provisions and nothing repugnant, then the non obstante clause of the subsequent statute would prevail over the earlier enactments and therefore the non obstante clause in the Act of 2009 would prevail over the non obstante clause in the Act of 1994.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - P S Bhati - Full Document

Kripa Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 February, 2025

17.1. This Court further observes that both these provisions which expound different requisites contain non obstante clauses respectively, which ousts the applicability of the other Statute and corresponding relevant provisions within it. Therefore, for resolving the controversy at hand, it becomes pertinent to first answer the question as to which out of the two provisions will prevail if both of them have a non obstante clause. 17.2. This Court in this regard, observes that as per the judgment rendered in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (supra), the position of law is that, when two enactments have competing non obstante provisions and nothing repugnant, then the non obstante clause of the subsequent statute would prevail over the earlier enactments and therefore the non obstante clause in the Act of 2009 would prevail over the non obstante clause in the Act of 1994.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - P S Bhati - Full Document

Dungar Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan on 28 February, 2025

17.1. This Court further observes that both these provisions which expound different requisites contain non obstante clauses respectively, which ousts the applicability of the other Statute and corresponding relevant provisions within it. Therefore, for resolving the controversy at hand, it becomes pertinent to first answer the question as to which out of the two provisions will prevail if both of them have a non obstante clause. 17.2. This Court in this regard, observes that as per the judgment rendered in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (supra), the position of law is that, when two enactments have competing non obstante provisions and nothing repugnant, then the non obstante clause of the subsequent statute would prevail over the earlier enactments and therefore the non obstante clause in the Act of 2009 would prevail over the non obstante clause in the Act of 1994.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - P S Bhati - Full Document

M/S. M.D. Esthappan Infrastructure ... vs Reserve Bank Of India on 28 July, 2025

In the common judgment dated 24.06.2025 in W.A.Nos.481 of 2025 and 484 of 2025, this Court has also referred to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Girnar Corrugators (P) Ltd. [(2023) 3 SCC 210] and South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip [2023 SCC 2025:KER:55272 R.P.Nos.797 of 2025 and 799 of 2025 25 online (SC) 435] on the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, instead of approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. In paragraph 33 of the common judgment dated 24.06.2025, this Court noticed that the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.46514 of 2024 challenged the classification of the accounts as NPA, by filing W.P.(C)No.38732 of 2023. This Court, by Ext.P14 judgment dated 27.11.2023 closed the said writ petition, by relegating them to invoke the remedy provided before the statutory forum. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner in W.P.(C)No.46514 of 2024 - M/s.M.D. Esthappan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. - filed W.P.(C)No. 22424 of 2024, when recovery steps were taken against the secured assets. In that writ petition, this Court found that no relief can be granted to the writ petitioner and the same was disposed of by relegating the writ petitioner to avail the statutory remedy provided before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The writ petitioners in W.P.(C)No.46514 of 2024 challenged the proceedings initiated by the 3rd respondent Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, by filing a Securitisation Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Ernakulam, as S.A.No.776 of 2023. The said 2025:KER:55272 R.P.Nos.797 of 2025 and 799 of 2025 26 Securitisation Application was dismissed as withdrawn on 12.02.2025, with liberty to file fresh Securitisation Application on the same cause of action, based on a memo filed by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have approached the civil court and the High Court invoking their statutory remedy.
Kerala High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - A Narendran - Full Document

Jhunjar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 February, 2025

17.1. This Court further observes that both these provisions which expound different requisites contain non obstante clauses respectively, which ousts the applicability of the other Statute and corresponding relevant provisions within it. Therefore, for resolving the controversy at hand, it becomes pertinent to first answer the question as to which out of the two provisions will prevail if both of them have a non obstante clause. 17.2. This Court in this regard, observes that as per the judgment rendered in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (supra), the position of law is that, when two enactments have competing non obstante provisions and nothing repugnant, then the non obstante clause of the subsequent statute would prevail over the earlier enactments and therefore the non obstante clause in the Act of 2009 would prevail over the non obstante clause in the Act of 1994.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - P S Bhati - Full Document

Gram Panchayat Barmer Gadan vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 February, 2025

17.1. This Court further observes that both these provisions which expound different requisites contain non obstante clauses respectively, which ousts the applicability of the other Statute and corresponding relevant provisions within it. Therefore, for resolving the controversy at hand, it becomes pertinent to first answer the question as to which out of the two provisions will prevail if both of them have a non obstante clause. 17.2. This Court in this regard, observes that as per the judgment rendered in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (supra), the position of law is that, when two enactments have competing non obstante provisions and nothing repugnant, then the non obstante clause of the subsequent statute would prevail over the earlier enactments and therefore the non obstante clause in the Act of 2009 would prevail over the non obstante clause in the Act of 1994.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - P S Bhati - Full Document

Gram Panchayat Barmer Magra vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 February, 2025

17.1. This Court further observes that both these provisions which expound different requisites contain non obstante clauses respectively, which ousts the applicability of the other Statute and corresponding relevant provisions within it. Therefore, for resolving the controversy at hand, it becomes pertinent to first answer the question as to which out of the two provisions will prevail if both of them have a non obstante clause. 17.2. This Court in this regard, observes that as per the judgment rendered in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (supra), the position of law is that, when two enactments have competing non obstante provisions and nothing repugnant, then the non obstante clause of the subsequent statute would prevail over the earlier enactments and therefore the non obstante clause in the Act of 2009 would prevail over the non obstante clause in the Act of 1994.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - P S Bhati - Full Document

Motan Das vs The State Of Rajasthan on 28 February, 2025

17.1. This Court further observes that both these provisions which expound different requisites contain non obstante clauses respectively, which ousts the applicability of the other Statute and corresponding relevant provisions within it. Therefore, for resolving the controversy at hand, it becomes pertinent to first answer the question as to which out of the two provisions will prevail if both of them have a non obstante clause. 17.2. This Court in this regard, observes that as per the judgment rendered in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (supra), the position of law is that, when two enactments have competing non obstante provisions and nothing repugnant, then the non obstante clause of the subsequent statute would prevail over the earlier enactments and therefore the non obstante clause in the Act of 2009 would prevail over the non obstante clause in the Act of 1994.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - P S Bhati - Full Document

Samandar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 February, 2025

17.1. This Court further observes that both these provisions which expound different requisites contain non obstante clauses respectively, which ousts the applicability of the other Statute and corresponding relevant provisions within it. Therefore, for resolving the controversy at hand, it becomes pertinent to first answer the question as to which out of the two provisions will prevail if both of them have a non obstante clause. 17.2. This Court in this regard, observes that as per the judgment rendered in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (supra), the position of law is that, when two enactments have competing non obstante provisions and nothing repugnant, then the non obstante clause of the subsequent statute would prevail over the earlier enactments and therefore the non obstante clause in the Act of 2009 would prevail over the non obstante clause in the Act of 1994.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - P S Bhati - Full Document

Electrosteel Steel Limited (Now M/S Esl ... vs Ispat Carriers Private Limited Through ... on 17 July, 2023

59. Judgement reported in (2020) 3 SCC 210-Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd. deals with the issue as to whether MSME Act has overriding effect on IBC and it has been held that there is no conflict between MSME Act and IBC. In the present case, this court need not deal with the issue as to whether IBC Act will have over-riding effect on MSME Act in view of the fact that there is no occasion to decide this issue as the approved resolution plan neither terminates the pending arbitral proceedings before the facilitation council nor it nullifies the claim of the respondent when seen in the light of the approved resolution plan.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - A R Choudhary - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next