Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 825 (0.03 seconds)
Documents citing Allahabad Bank vs Canara Bank & Another on 10 April, 2000

Official Liquidator, Spark Plugs (I) ... vs Bank Of India And Ors. on 31 July, 2006

3. The respondent Bank of India filed reply admitting the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi, against M/s. Spark Plug India Ltd. Filing of objection by the official liquidator before the Recovery Officer was also admitted by the bank. The bank supported the case of Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank [2000] 101 Comp Cas 64 : [2004] 4 SCC 406 relied on by the Recovery Officer in its order. The bank stated that the DRT has got the exclusive jurisdiction to decide the priorities amongst the various creditors subject to the provisions of Section 529A of the Companies Act. The bank denied that they had given any consent to sale the assets of the debtor-company through official liquidator.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Syndicate Bank vs Andhra Pradesh Steels Limited And Ors. on 8 October, 2002

7. After receiving the offers pursuant to the notices in newspapers on 1-6-2002 and 2-6-2002, the Official Liquidator filed his report on 20-6-2002 stating that for lot No. 1, an amount of Rs. 2,06,00,000/- has been offered being the highest offer as against the minimum upset price of Rs. 2,92,42,500/-, that for lot No. 2, the highest offer received is Rs.2,96,12,500/-, as against the minimum upset price of Rs. 4,97,80,500/-, and for lot No. 3, the highest offer received is Rs. 3,15,00,000/- as against the minimum upset price of Rs. 4,97,80,500/-. At no point of time, the applicant bank raised any objection nor filed any application before this Court seeking stay of all further proceedings in CA No. 354 of 2002. After conducting auction, and at the stage when the matter was posted for confirmation, the Syndicate Bank filed the present application raising objection that the Official Liquidator cannot conduct sale of the properties in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank. These facts are not denied. The main contention of the learned Counsel is that in view of Section 34 of DRT Act, the properties which are mortgaged to Syndicate Bank cannot be brought to sale in winding up proceedings. It is also the contention that notwithstanding the proceedings of the Companies Act, the provisions of DRT Act prevail, and therefore, any recourse to winding up under the Companies Act would defeat the purpose of DRT Act. It, is therefore, necessary to notice the purport of relevant provisions of Companies Act as well as DRT Act.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - N V Ramana - Full Document

Raghunath Rai Bareja And Another vs Punjab National Bank And Others on 6 December, 2006

In this connection, it may be mentioned that Section 446(3) of the Companies Act was omitted by Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002 and evidently the High Court has overlooked this Amendment. As a result in our opinion the High Court has no power to transfer the Execution Petition to the Debts Recovery Tribunal. At any event as held in Allahabad Bank vs. Canara Bank & Anr.(supra), Section 446 has no application once the RDB Act applies because Section 34 expressly gives overriding effect to the provisions of the RDB Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 277 - M Katju - Full Document

Indian Bank vs O.L. Of Satnam Export (India) Ltd. on 9 March, 2005

However, in the present case, when a specific prayer is made to direct the O.L. to hand over the possession to the Recovery Officer appointed by the Tribunal, this Court is bound to follow the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ALLAHABAD BANK (SUPRA) as in no uncertain terms, it is held that only Section 529-A is attracted to proceedings before the Tribunal and on questions of adjudication, execution and working out priorities, the Special Provisions made in the RDB Act have to be applied. The Official Liquidator is therefore directed to hand over the possession of the entire assets movable as well as immovable of the company in liquidation to the Recovery Officer appointed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Recovery Officer shall undertake the task of sale of the properties of the company in liquidation by following due procedure of law and in accordance with the statutory provisions. After the assets are sold and the amount is realised, the Debt Recovery Tribunal shall determine the priority claim of the secured creditors keeping in mind the provisions contained in Section 529A of the Act and before any distribution of the amount is made amongst the creditors, the Official Liquidator taking care of workmens' interest and the present respondent No. 2 i.e. IDBI may also be heard in the matter. The Court has not decided the priority claims of the contesting parties. The Tribunal shall look into it and after close scrutiny and proper appreciation of the documentary evidence that may be led, the rival claims of the parties shall be decided. The Official Liquidator is further directed to render all assistance to the Recovery Officer appointed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal for successfully and effectively carrying out the sale of the properties of the company in liquidation. It is open for the parties to approach this Court if there is any dispute with regard to distribution of sale proceeds.
Gujarat High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - K A Puj - Full Document

Gujarat vs O.L on 7 August, 2012

This view was taken in Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank and Anr. (supra) in view of Recovery of Debts Act being a subsequent legislation and being a special law would prevail over the general law, the Companies Act. This argument is not available as far as the SFC Act is concerned, since Section 529-A was introduced by Act 35 of 1985 and the overriding provision therein would prevail over the SFC Act of 1951 as amended in 1956 and notwithstanding Section 46-B of the SFC Act. As regards distribution of assets, there is no conflict. It seems to us that whether the assets are realized by a secured creditor even if it be by proceeding under the SFC Act or under the Recovery of Debts Act, the distribution of the assets could only be in terms of Section 529-A of the Act and by recognizing the right of the liquidator to calculate the workmen's dues and collect it for distribution among them pari passu with the secured creditors. The Official Liquidator representing a ranked secured creditor working under the control of the company Court cannot, therefore, be kept out of the process."
Gujarat High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - K M Thaker - Full Document

In Re: Imp Powers Ltd. vs Unknown on 29 March, 2007

The Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank has held that a company court has no jurisdiction over the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Recovery Officers even in cases where winding up petitions are pending or winding up order has been made. This court has only to follow the same. Though the learned senior counsel for the appellant has argued that in this case we are concerned with an application filed under Section 391(6) of the Companies Act and that question was not under the consideration of the Supreme Court, we do not think that we will be justified in accepting that contention as according to us, the position is not better for the company when even in winding up proceedings the company court has no jurisdiction to stay the pro- ceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

The Specified Undertaking Of The Uti vs M/S Derby Testiles Limited on 27 July, 2022

An analysis of the decision of the Allahabad Bank (supra) would reveal that the said decision was rendered mainly in the context of the provisions of the RDB Act and sections 442, 446, 529A and 537 of the Companies Act. The provisions of sections 433, 434 and 439 were not at issue and not at all considered by the Supreme Court in the said judgment. The issues that also arose for consideration in that case have no relevance and bearing in respect of the facts and issues at hand. Consequently, the said decision has no relevance and bearing and does not answer the issues that arise for our consideration in this case.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - P S Bhati - Full Document

Dinesh Gaur vs Derby Textiles Ltd. Through Director on 27 July, 2022

An analysis of the decision of the Allahabad Bank (supra) would reveal that the said decision was rendered mainly in the context of the provisions of the RDB Act and sections 442, 446, 529A and 537 of the Companies Act. The provisions of sections 433, 434 and 439 were not at issue and not at all considered by the Supreme Court in the said judgment. The issues that also arose for consideration in that case have no relevance and bearing in respect of the facts and issues at hand. Consequently, the said decision has no relevance and bearing and does not answer the issues that arise for our consideration in this case.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - P S Bhati - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next