Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.32 seconds)

T.Bhuvanendran vs Lic Housing Finance Ltd on 24 July, 2009

11. Viewed in the above context, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decisions in Vysa Co.operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Ms. G. Keerthana & Ors (2008 Karnataka 25) and Lakshmi Shankar Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Authorised Officer, Indian Bank (AIR 2008 Madras Page 181) does not deserve to be considered; particularly since the law laid down by the Apex Court is the 'law of the land' by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
Kerala High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 5 - P R Menon - Full Document

Vidya Sagar vs Smt. Raj Dulari & Ors on 27 August, 2016

8.   Regarding issue of jurisdiction of Civil Court, it is argued that in a suit like the present one, jurisdiction of civil court very much lies as such rights can be determined and enforced only by Civil Courts. (Reference is made to the judgments titled as Ram Prakash Mehra Vs. Union Bank of India & Ors, DOD 31 October,2011; Ritu Gupta Vs. Usha Dhand & Ors, DOD 19th November,2013; Krishna Devi & Ors. Vs. Kedarnath Vs.   Ors.;   Vyshya   Cooperative   Bank   Ltd.   Vs.   G.   Keerthana   &   Ors. DOD   25.10.2007;   Arasa   Kumar   &   Anr.   Vs.   Nallammal   &Ors. 19.03.2004; Maradia Chemicals Vs. UOI(2004)4 SCC 311).
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sarwan Kumari vs Mahendra Kumar Gupta on 1 July, 2010

5. " learned counsei for the appeilants-pIa1'ntiffs V.sul;>mitted that the Bank had waived the personal l fguarantee furnished by late N.R.Gupta and this is ciear from the document dated 4.4.2005 and, as such, the 2* gt question of the mortgage subsisting does not arise. In this connection, reference was made by the learned counsel for the appellants to the Corporvate-.._:lfDebt Restructuring (CDRJ package and to produced by the plaintiffs before. the trial" .It--- » therefore, contended that the declining to grant an ordei'.of~.injunction as so__u'ght'"for by V the plaintiffs and more sop,-whenlthe personalliguarantee furnished by the question of the mortgage_ arise. Having regard to"t'h_eV trial court and the suitvbeiiiggionell:ffo~r trial court, therefore. was not the relief sought under if A Asupport--~"his submission that the suit is l the provisions of Section 34 of the Securvitilsation Act coming as a bar does not arise, the learnecl counsel for the appellants placed reliance on court's decision in the case of Vysya Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Ms. G.Keerthana, reported in AIR 2008 Karnataka 25, It is also argued in this connection that «tr if the plaintiffs were to succeed in the suit for partition. in the meanwhile if the Bank were to proceed to alienate the suit property, the plaintiffs would be p1_;t..vV_:to'l~1oss. Therefore, all these factors were not taken-intofiecoiint, by the trial court.
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - V Jagannathan - Full Document

Jigna vs Bank on 28 January, 2010

Ms.G.Keerthana and others (Supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner by stating that the judgment of the Karnataka High Court is not applicable, as the same has been rendered in a Suit for partition and the judgment of the Gujarat High Court has been rendered in a tenancy case. It is further submitted by Ms.Nalini S.Lodha,learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 and 2 that there is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner is a member of a Hindu Undivided Family and she has not sought any declaration to that effect, in the suit. Referring to the order dated 5-3-2009 passed in Special Civil Application No.1405 of 2009, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure C to the petition, it is submitted by Ms.Nalini S.Lodha that the father of the petitioner did not abide by an undertaking given by him, therefore, the petition filed by him has been dismissed by this Court, which fact has not been revealed in the Suit.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - A Kumari - Full Document
1