Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing L.P. Shashi Kumar vs Indsutrial Dev. Bank Of India Ltd.& Ors on 8 February, 2007

Nandigam Ramakrishna Rao S/O Late ... vs State Bank Of Hyderabad And Another on 7 August, 2013

16. During the period the loan account is in force pertaining to the personal loan obtained by the respondent no.2 from the main branch of the respondent no.1 bank, the respondent no.1 can always exercise general lien over the documents till discharge of the loan amount by the respondent no.2. The decision relied upon in L.P.Shashi Kumar Vs Industrial Dev.Bank of India Ltd., and Others, CDJ 2007 SC 167 has no application to the facts as in the present case the personal loan account of the respondent no.2 is still alive and in force.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Heerasingh Sahu vs Gopal Das Hablani on 17 September, 2024

2. Facts of the case are that present petitioners, respondent No.1 and other 54 persons have jointly purchased the property bearing Khasra No.846, 847/1 admeasuring area 0.058 hectare, Khasra No.846/16 admeasuring area 0.68 3/6 hectare, Khasra No.848/17 admeasuring area 0.14 hectare, Khasra No.849 admeasuring area 0.036 hectare, Khasra No.850/6 admeasuring area 0.497 hectare, total five khasra numbers admeasuring 0.0673 hectares situated at Village Balodabazar. They had purchased the said property during sale auction by State Bank of India in the name of Shri Ramesh Kedia in terms of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The sale certificate has also been issued in favour of petitioners and 54 purchasers on 05.02.2011 and got registered on 29.03.2011. The said sale deed also contained memorandum of statement to the effect that property would be used by the purchasers. Petitioner No.1 has filed a civil suit alleging that respondents No.1 to 4 by misleading the State Authorities preferred an application for construction of commercial project and started raising construction on the subject property though Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.30786/2011 (M/s Seth Banshidhar Ked. Rice Mil. P. L & Or Vs. State Bank of India & Ors) was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein on 21.11.2011 a direction was issued to maintain status quo in respect of subject property. A prayer has also been made in the suit for mandatory and permanent injunction over the subject property and to remove the illegal construction already carried out by the respondents No.1 to 4 and direction to comply with conditions mentioned in memorandum of association dated 29.03.2013 in respect of 1392 sqft part of subject property. In the suit, at the stage of final arguments, petitioner No.1 preferred an application to array petitioners No.2 & 3 as a plaintiffs, however, the same has been rejected by the order impugned. Hence this petition.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1