Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 343 (0.98 seconds)
Documents citing Mahesh Chandra vs Regional Manager, U.P. Financial ... on 12 February, 1992

Malladi Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs Tuber Pharma Chemicals Ltd. And Another on 14 February, 1997

16. The Corporation filed a separate counter-affidavit contending that as the writ petitioner has become a chronic defaulter, the loans were foreclosed by a communication dated May 24, 1990, and as the dues were not liquidated, the possession of the unit was taken over on August 22, 1990, and the sale was held ultimately on August 14, 1991. The sale was held after due publicity in the press and the writ petitioner did not protest throughout and that the writ petition was filed only long after possession was handed over to the review petitioner. It is also contended that the writ petitioner filed the writ petition after the Corporation had filed S.F.C.O.P. No. 7 of 1992, before the District Judge, Vellore, for enforcing the guarantee. The sale in the instant case was held long before the publication of the judgment in Mahesh Chandra v. U.P. Financial Corporation . Therefore, the Corporation prayed that this court may pass appropriate orders.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Shri Kandavel Industries vs Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment ... on 28 February, 1994

16. Mr. A. L. Somayaji, learned counsel for the Corporation, would submit that since the Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines for the first time in Mahesh Chandra v. U.P. Financial Corporation [1993] 78 Comp Cas 1, the sale effected by the Corporation prior to the date of the said judgment should not be set aside on the ground that such sale did not conform to the guidelines. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr. A. L. Somayaji. The guidelines have been laid down by the Supreme Court only to ensure that actions of financial corporations under section 29 of the Act are fair and reasonable and do not suffer from arbitrariness. Even prior to the said decision, the court exercising the powers under article 226 of the Constitution would be well within its right to set aside the sale made under section 29 of the Act if such powers have been exercised in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner and in violation of any of the statutory provisions. Hence, the position of law remains the same.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Jwalamala Plast Private Ltd. vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation ... on 11 August, 1993

Thus, the petitioner was kept in the dark regarding further developments that have taken place after the tender notice was published. Section 29 of the Act confers very wide power on the corporation, but the very wide power requires the corporation to act with circumspection and that the exercise of such power must be only to effectuate the purpose of the Act. The power under section 29 of the Act to take possession of a defaulting unit and transfer it by sale requires the corporation to act cautiously, honestly, fairly and reasonably. The petitioner has referred to the case of Mahesh Chandra v. U.P. Financial Corporation [1993] 78 Comp Cas 1 (SC) and has reproduced certain directions given by the Supreme Court in the said case. On the basis of the said judgment of the Supreme Court and keeping in view the guidelines, the petitioner has contended that taking over of the assets and subsequent sale of the assets by the first respondent are without authority of law and are liable to be set aside. The petitioner is entitled to an opportunity at several stages of the proceedings taken by the first respondent. Except notifying the petitioner that the unit will be sold if the amount is not paid and issuing of public notice calling for offers, the petitioner has not been informed of the highest offer and thus deprived the petitioner of the opportunity to have its say in regard to the adequacy of the offer. On the basis of these averments the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the reliefs as aforesaid.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - S V Patil - Full Document

Flair Heals Pharmaceuticals vs Gujarat State Financial Corporation ... on 12 March, 1997

2. The claim of the petitioner is resisted by respondent No. 1, the G.S.F.C., by filing its affidavit in reply. It is contended that the action taken by respondent No. 1 is within the purview of the provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, and this is not a fit case for interference of the High Court by exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with their statutory action against the petitioner. It is contended that they had given sufficient and ample opportunities to the petitioner to come out of his financial difficulties as well as in making payment of the dues. But the same was not availed of by the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner that the action taken by them is contrary to the provisions of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh, Chandra v. U.P. Financial Corporation [1993] 78 Comp Cas 1; AIR 1993 SC 935, is not correct. Thus, it is contended that the petitioner's petition be dismissed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - S D Pandit - Full Document

R.T. Udyog Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 26 February, 2002

In Hotel Babadham v. Bihar State Financial Corporation (10), Division Bench of Patna High Court observed that the ruling of the Supreme Court in Mahesh Chandra v. U.P. Financial Corporation (supra) that if the borrower is willing to offer the sale price he should be offered the same facility and the unit should be transferred to him, should not be applied in a case where the borrower fails to avail of the offer made to him. it was a case where the petitioners' offer in March, 1992, to deposit the sale price offered by the tenderer had been accepted by the Corporation, but the cheques issued by the petitioners were dishonoured; again, in October, 1992, the petitioners were given an opportunity by the Court in a writ petition to pay off their dues, but instead of accepting the fair offer of the Corporation, they chose to file a suit and the writ petition had been filed only after the interim injunction obtained by the petitioners in an earlier suit was vacated and in the second suit, no interim injunction was granted, the unit was auctioned and the intending purchaser deposited Rs. 10 lacs by selling his lands'. On the facts, the Patna High Court held that this was not a case where the sale of property was found to be vitiated by unjust and unreasonable acts on the part of the Corporation or its officers or its employees and the petitioners were not entitled to equitable relief, in view of their own conduct.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Subhash Chand Goyal Son Of Shri Jawahar ... vs U.P.E.C., Through Its Managing ... on 24 March, 2005

"13. On behalf of the appellant reliance has been placed upon the decision of this Court in Mahesh Chandra v. Regional manager, U.P. Financial Corporation. We have perused the decision. That was a case where the debtor was anxious to pay off the debt and had been taking several steps to discharge his obligation. On the facts of that particular case it was found that the corporation was acting reasonably (sic unreasonably). In that context certain observations were made. The decision also deals with the procedure to be adopted by the corporation while selling the units taken over under Section 29. That aspect is not relevant in this case. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the said decision is of no help to the appellant herein.
Allahabad High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Utham S.Gugalia vs The Branch Manager on 10 October, 2022

35. The second petitioner in W.P.No.23006 of 2011 (one of the auction purchaser) in his communication dated 28.10.2009 to the lender has clearly stated that the auction purchasers were the highest bidder in the auction held on 05.08.1996, whereas, in the official communications of lender and in the impugned communication dated 01.07.2011, it has been stated that after the auction was conducted on 05.08.1996, the auction bidders offered to pay 10% above the auction amount as nominees of the borrower in terms of the decision of the Court in Hon’ble ______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No 19 of 30 W.P.Nos.23006 & 28702 of 2011 Supreme Court Magesh Chandra vs. Regional Manager, U.P.Financial Corporation and Others, (1993) 2 Supreme Court Cases 279.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - C Saravanan - Full Document

Maheshpur Tea And Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Mantala Tea Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 1 February, 2001

The aforesaid letter dated 5.1.1977 (Ext.M) had been addressed by the plaintiff to the Defendant No. 2. It would be clear from Ext.-M that the plaintiff had full knowledge of the sale arrangements of its Tea Estate to the Defendant No. 2 by the Defendant No. 1 and of posting of an observer by the Defendant No. 2 at the Tea Estate of the plaintiff under the authority of the Defendant No. 1. In Exhibit-M, the plaintiff had also stated that it had no fund of its own nor any resources to arrange working finance of the Tea Estate for the Season 1977-78. in case its Bankers turned down the request to provide finance for the usual working of the Tea Estate. In Exhibit-M, the plaintiff had requested the Defendant No. 2 to arrange temporary unsecured loan on its behalf for meeting the working finance of the Tea Estate. In Exhibit-M, the plaintiff had also stated that the unsecured loan of Rs. 20,530.84 extended by the Defendant No. 2 to the plaintiff upto 31.12.1976 would also be repaid by the plaintiff with interest. Thus, Exhibit-M not only shows that the plaintiff was fully aware of the sale arrangements between the Defendant No. 1 and the Defendant No. 2, but also shows that the plaintiff did not have the funds or resources to pay the defaulted amount to the Defendant No. 1. The sale of the suit property took place in 1977 and the guidelines for sale of units by the State Finance Corporation were laid down by the Supreme Court in Mahesh Chandra's case (supra) in 1993. The Defendant No. 1 could not therefore strictly follow the said guidelines when it sold the suit property in 1976-77 though it was required to act in a fair, reasonable and bona fide manner while making the sale. The plaintiffs case in the plaint was not that he was not intimated the price at which the suit property was proposed to be sold by the Defendant No. 1 to the Defendant No. 2. The plaintiffs case in the suit was that though it represented to the Defendant No. 1 to withdraw the sale notice and to give it some time to pay off its dues, the Defendant No. 1 sold the suit property to the Defendant No. 2 and that the sale was collusive, unjust, arbitrary, malicious and fraudulent. The Defendant No. 1 had taken a plea of acquiescence on the part of the plaintiff in para-3 of its written statement and had also stated in para-13(f) of its written statement that the plaintiff never objected to the appointment of an observer and on the contrary confirmed such appointment by letter dated 3.1.1977. The Defendant No. 2 had similarly stated in para-9(d) of its written statement that the plaintiff rendered all assistance and cooperation to the observer posted by the Defendant No. 2 at the Tea Estate to perform the duties entrusted to him without any hindrance and that the plaintiff never objected to the appointment of the observer and on the contrary did confirm such appointment by a letter dated 5.1.1977. Thus, the said letter dated 5.1.1977 of the plaintiff Exhibit-M was a relevant and material evidence relied on by both the Defendant No. 1 and Defendant . No. 2 and had the first appellate Court considered Exhibit-M it would not have reached the conclusion that the Defendant No. 1 acted unfairly or unreasonably in not granting further opportunity to the plaintiff to pay the defaulted amount and in finally selling the suit property to the Defendant No. 2 by the registered Sale Deed on 23.3.1977 SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION NOS.
Gauhati High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 2 - A K Patnaik - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next