Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 41 (0.98 seconds)
Documents citing Allahabad Bank Etc. Etc vs Bengal Paper Mills Co. Ltd. And Others on 20 April, 1999

Allahabad Bank vs M/S Navkush Flour Mills And Ors on 5 April, 2024

4. In the written statement, the defendant no.3 denied the averments of the plaint. The defendant no.3 contended that the CS (Comm) 491/19 Page No. 4 of 13 ALLAHABAD BANK VS. NAVKUSH FLOUR MILLS & ORS. present suit is not maintainable against the defendant no.3 as the defendant no.3 never visited to the plaintiff bank nor executed any such loan documents or made guarantor for the alleged loan advanced to the defendant no.1. It is further contended that the defendant no.1 and her husband obtained the signature of the defendant no.3 on blank papers as well as blank printed papers and the defendant no.3 was not allowed to read the contents of the said documents nor the copies of the said documents was ever supplied to the defendant no.3.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bakeman'S Industries P. Limited vs New Cawnpore Floor Mills And Ors. on 2 July, 2007

The learned senior counsel further relied upon the position of law laid down by the Hon'ble supreme Court in Allahabad Bank and Others v. Bengal Paper Mills Co. Ltd. (supra), to submit that the Learned company judge should have fixed a reserve price for the assets. But in our view, the act of fixing the reserve price was peculiar to the facts of the said case. Further, in the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon the position of the law laid down in the case of Navlakha and sons. v. Sri Ramayana Das wherein it was held that in every case it is the duty of the court to satisfy itself that having regard to the market value of the property, the price offered is reasonable and unless the court is satisfied about the adequacy of the price, the act of confirmation of the sale would not be a proper exercise of judicial discretion.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 2 - M Mudgal - Full Document

Kasturi Commodities Pvt Ltd vs K.Shajahan on 26 July, 2013

33. Likewise, the case of Allahabad Bank and others v. Bengal Paper Mills Co. Ltd. and others, (1999) 4 SCC 383 also relates to sale of immovable property. On the plea that the Court has to take the interest of small trade creditors so as to protect their rights, in the case on hand, this Court has taken into consideration the overall situation and postponed the auction at the first instance to ensure that one another opportunity is to be given to allow the persons to participate in the open auction bid and that has not come to fruition. Given the fact that the Vessel is not in a fit condition, as the engine and other parts have been removed, there is no need for the Court to wait any longer and confirm the sale. In fact, none of the respondent creditors are seriously objecting to the sale made by this Court, as they state that everyday's delay will cause further loss in value. It is more so at this moment of time when the Rupee is falling drastically against the Dollar.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - R Sudhakar - Full Document

Jhalani Tools (India) Ltd. vs Morgan Ventures Ltd. on 18 May, 2009

74. The pronouncement of the Apex Court reported at (1999) 4 SCC 383 Allahabad Bank & Ors. vs. Bengal Paper Mills Co. Ltd. & Ors. is to the same effect. It may be noted that in the case before the Supreme Court the terms of auction contained the stipulation that the sale could be set aside after confirmation. The sale was set aside inter alia for the reason that no reserve price of 33 the property was fixed ; that the sale was insufficiently advertised; that the offer of the highest bidder was not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the sale; that the valuation report was based on incomplete parameters; consequential directions were made in haste without considering various aspects of the matter and the best possible price had not been endeavoured to be realised in the interest of the creditors. In para 25, the court had clearly laid down that the interest of the creditors of the company are paramount as is the obligation of the court to them.
Delhi High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - G Mittal - Full Document

Punjab Wireless Systems Limited (In ... vs The Indian Overseas Bank And Ors. on 30 March, 2005

31. The argument of Dr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the auction purchase that inadequacy of price can not be considered as a basis for setting aside the confirmed bid or that there should be some element of perversity or unfairness in conducting the auction, in view of the law laid down in various paragraphs quoted from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Union Bank of India's case (supra), Divya Manufacturing Company (P) Ltd.'s case (supra) and Allahabad Bank's case (supra), can no: be accepted. It is true that the reserve price and the price according to the valuation re-port are less than the price offered by the auction purchaser but it appears to be equaly true that the land and the building price of Lot No. 17 is worth much more as the difference is huge.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Smt. Pinky Mundra vs Debts Appellate Recovery Tribunal At ... on 9 December, 2021

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the borrowers has submitted that there was flagrant violation of the provisions of the Act, 2002 and the Rules 2002. Notice under Section 13(4) was not served upon the purchasers as is mandatorily required. No proof of service of notice was furnished by the Bank before both the Tribunals. In view of violation of mandatory provisions the entire proceedings stand vitiated. Only land was put to auction but the sale certificate has been issued also in respect of the structure/building standing thereupon which was impermissible. The balance amount of the auction price was received by the Bank from the auction purchasers after expiry of stipulated period of 15 days without consent of the borrowers in violation of Rule 9(4). These findings have categorically been recorded by the 8 authorities below which on the basis of the record, are not liable to be interfered with. Reliance has been placed by him on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Allahabad Bank and others vs Bengal Paper Mills Co. Ltd. And others [2004 (8) SCC, 236], Allahabad Bank and others vs Bengal Paper Mills Co. Ltd. and others [1999 (4) SCC 383], Union Bank Of India vs Official Liquidator and others [2000 (5) SCC 274], Central Bank Of India vs Ravindra And Ors [2002 (1) SCC 367] Authorized Officer, Indian Overseas Bank & Anr. Vs Ashok Saw Mill [2009 (8) SCC 366], Kanungo Filling Station and another vs. State Bank of India and others W.P. No.2175/2012 decided on 22.08.2013, Central Bank of India vs M/s. Jain Mineral Water W.P. No.1991/2019 decided on 18.02.2019, Swastik Agency and Others vs. State Bank of India, Bhuneshwar & others [AIR 2009 Orr 147], General Manager, Sri Siddeshwara Co-Op.Bank Ltd. & another vs Ikbal & Ors [2013 (10) SCC 83] and Chinnammal & Ors vs P. Arumugham & Anr [1990 (1) SCC 513] to submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the auction purchasers are not entitled for any interest on the amount deposited by them with the Bank. Their conduct in these proceedings even otherwise disentitles them to any relief.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - P Verma - Full Document

S.R. Buildcon vs Sunfil Oils Ltd. And Anr. on 25 April, 2005

Emphasising that the object of sale is to apply the sale proceeds to meet the claims of the creditors of the company, the Supreme Court in the case of Allahabad Bank v. Bengal Paper Mills Co. Ltd. , has held that it is the duty of the courts to ensure that the best possible price is realised by sale of the assets and the properties of the company in liquidation as it is obliged to the creditors for undertaking such a course. It was noticed that the learned company judge had ordered possession to be delivered to the official liquidator hastily and concluded that the auction purchasers should have realised that the order of sale could be set aside when any expenditure incurred by the auction purchaser was at his own risk. It was also observed that the interest of the creditors of the company, particularly those of the unsecured creditors overweighed such equities."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next