M/S Garg Oil Industries And Another vs State Of U.P. And Others on 14 January, 2020
22. That was not the case either in Haryana Financial Corporation Vs. Jagdamba Oil Mills (supra) nor in the present case.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 813 (0.70 seconds)Documents citing
Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr vs M/S Jagdamba Oil Mills & Anr on 28 January, 2002
Biswanath Rice Mill vs Orissa State Financial Corporation And ... on 14 July, 2004
In paragraph 22 of the said judgment in the case of Haryana Financial Corporation v. Jagdamba Oil Mills, AIR 2002 SC 834 (supra), the Supreme Court quoted Lord Denning who has said that each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect and in deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another.
M/S.Chennimalai Yarns (P) Ltd vs The State Industries on 30 March, 2010
47. As regards the decision reported in 2002 (1) CTC 503 (Haryana Financial Corporation and another Vs. Jagdamba Oil Mills and another), which also reaffirmed the principles as in the decision reported in (1993) 2 SCC 299 (U.P. Financial Corporation Vs. Gem Cap (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others) and also reiterated in the decision reported in (2005) 4 SCC 456 (Karnataka State Industrial Investment & Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Cavalet India Ltd. and others), as stated in the preceding paragraphs, I am not in a position to accept the plea made by the petitioner that the tender notice, which ultimately culminated into the confirmation of sale in favour of the fourth respondent, has to be declared as null and void.
Binny Limited Rep. By N. Ganesh General ... vs The Appellate Authority For Industrial ... on 1 September, 2003
8.3. Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, learned senior counsel, points out that the property sought to be disposed off by the petitioner company is not a public property, but it is a private property of the petitioner company and therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court in Chairman and Managing Director, SIPCOT, Madras-8, and Ors. Vs. Contromix Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Director (Finance) Seetharaman, Madras and another, , as followed in Haryana Financial Corporation & another Vs. Jagadamba Oil Mills and another (cited supra), referred by the AAIFR is not relevant to the issue.
Punjab Financial Corp vs M/S.Surya Auto Industries on 1 December, 2009
17. The High Court also committed serious error in declaring that he
appellant-Corporation will be entitled to charge simple interest at the rate of
10% w.e.f. 1.4.2003 i.e., after expiry of six months from the date of taking
over of the unit. Undisputedly, the respondent had not challenged the terms
of loan agreement. Therefore, the High Court could not have suo motu
altered terms of agreement and directed the appellant to make fresh
calculation of the outstanding dues and allowed the respondent to pay the
amount as per fresh demand by selling the mortgaged property. This
approach of the High Court is ex facie contrary to the law laid down in U.P.
Financial Corporation v. Gem Cap (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and
Haryana Financial Corporation v. Jagdamba Oil Mills (supra).
M/S.Binny Limited vs The Appellate Authority For Industrial on 24 September, 2003
10.11. The AAIFR in its order dated 9.5.2003 while confirming the
order of the BIFR dated 24.2.2003 held that the assets of the petitioner
company should be sold only by way of public auction through advertisement,
referring to the decisions of the Apex Court in Chairman and Managing
Director, SIPCOT, Madras-8, and Ors. Vs. Contromix Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its
Director (Finance) Seetharaman, Madras and another, reported in JT 1995 (6) SC
283 as followed in Haryana Financial Corporation & another Vs. Jagadamba Oil
Mills and another reported in JT 2002 (1) SC 482, in order to procure the best
price for the sale of public property, the property should be brought on
public auction. The reliance place on the said decisions is not tenable in
law as the assets proposed to be sold by the petitioner company are not public
properties.
Punjab Financial Corp vs M/S.Surya Auto Industries on 1 December, 2009
17. The High Court also committed serious error in declaring that he
appellant-Corporation will be entitled to charge simple interest at the rate of
10% w.e.f. 1.4.2003 i.e., after expiry of six months from the date of taking
over of the unit. Undisputedly, the respondent had not challenged the terms
of loan agreement. Therefore, the High Court could not have suo motu
altered terms of agreement and directed the appellant to make fresh
calculation of the outstanding dues and allowed the respondent to pay the
amount as per fresh demand by selling the mortgaged property. This
approach of the High Court is ex facie contrary to the law laid down in U.P.
Financial Corporation v. Gem Cap (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and
Haryana Financial Corporation v. Jagdamba Oil Mills (supra).
S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 18 April, 2003
16. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that those entrepreneurs who are willing to perform their part of the contract and have taken some steps in that direction should be supported. He submits that the petitioner is still prepared to pay the balance sum of the bid amount. In other word, it is still prepared to pay the balance sum of Rs. 76,06,864/- i.e., the bid amount after adjusting the sum of Rs. 24,93,136/- deposited by it under orders of this Court. It must first of all be clarified that the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 10 lacs only (on 20-4-2002) under orders of this Court. Relying on the; judgment of the Court of appeal in England in Associated Provincial Pictures Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (supra), to the extent adverted to in Haryana State Financial Corporation v. Jagdamba Oil Mills, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 2 should have in the aforesaid back ground exercised its discretion reasonably and in favour of the petitioner. The Court of appeal has observed in the judgment that, with respect to judicial review of exercise of such discretion, the "Courts must always remember, first, that the Act deals, not with a judicial act, but with an executive act; secondly, that the conditions which, under the exercise of that executive act, may be imposed are in terms put within the discretion of the local authority without limitation; and thirdly, that the statute provides no appeal from the decision of the local authority. What, then, is the power of the Courts?" The Court of appeal then proceeded to observe that the Court is "only concerned, to see whether the legal authority have contravened the law by acting in excess of the powers which parliament has vested in it. It must always be remembered that the Court is not a Court of appeal. The law recognises certain principles in which the discretion must be exercised, but within the four corners of those principles the discretion is an absolute one and cannot be questioned in any Court of law." The Court of appeal has in substance held that the powers of the Court to interfere with such executive discretion is extremely limited. The Court of appeal proceeded to illustrate by observing that it would be a bad exercise of discretion if the red-haired teacher were dismissed because she had red hair.
Paradigm Hotels Private Ltd. vs Edc Limited (A Government Of Goa ... on 28 April, 2004
It is further stated that this policy has been consistently followed by the respondent-Corporation since the decision of the Apex Court In the case of Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation and Anr. , Shri Kakodkar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner emphasises that the judgment of the Apex Court in Mahesh Chandra's case (supra), has been overruled by a Larger Bench in the case of Haryana Financial Corporation and Anr. v. Jagdamba Oil Mills and Anr. (supra). It was therefore erroneous on the part of the respondent to give an opportunity to the borrower to match the bid made by the petitioner and, therefore, the ground on which the petitioner's highest bid was rejected was improper and also the practice followed by the petitioner of giving an opportunity to the borrower to match the bid was not fair. We have perused the affidavit made by Shri Arvind Ghatkar as a whole.
Om Flour Mills (P) Limited vs Bihar State Financial Corporation And ... on 23 August, 2006
In view of such additional issues raised by the appellant and considering the observation made by the Supreme Court of India in Haryana Financial Corporation and Anr. v. Jagdamba Oil Mills and Anr. (Supra) as here under.