Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.03 seconds)The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002
United Bank Of India vs Satyawati Tondon & Ors on 26 July, 2010
11. The observations in Satyawati Tondon (supra) have been followed
by the Supreme Court inter alia in Authorized Officer, State Bank of
Travancore and Another vs. Mathew K.C. (2018) 3 SCC 85 [paragraphs
5, 9 to 15], and the recent judgment in C. Bright vs. District Collector and
Others (2021) 2 SCC 392 [paragraph 22].
Babu Ram Prakash Chandra Maheshwari vs Antarim Zila Parishad Muzaffar Nagar on 2 August, 1968
46. It must be remembered that stay of an action initiated by
the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities for recovery of
taxes, cess, fees, etc. seriously impedes execution of projects
of public importance and disables them from discharging
their constitutional and legal obligations towards the
citizens. In cases relating to recovery of the dues of banks,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:18.11.2021
10:46:05 W.P.(C) 12922/2021 Page 5 of 7
financial institutions and secured creditors, stay granted by
the High Court would have serious adverse impact on the
financial health of such bodies/institutions, which (sic will)
ultimately prove detrimental to the economy of the nation.
Therefore, the High Court should be extremely careful and
circumspect in exercising its discretion to grant stay in such
matters. Of course, if the petitioner is able to show that
itscase falls within any of the exceptions carved out in
Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila
Parishad [AIR 1969 SC 556] , Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar
of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1] and Harbanslal Sahnia v.
Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. [(2003) 2 SCC 107] and some other
judgments, then the High Court may, after considering all
the relevant parameters and public interest, pass an
appropriate interim order."
Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors on 26 October, 1998
46. It must be remembered that stay of an action initiated by
the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities for recovery of
taxes, cess, fees, etc. seriously impedes execution of projects
of public importance and disables them from discharging
their constitutional and legal obligations towards the
citizens. In cases relating to recovery of the dues of banks,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:18.11.2021
10:46:05 W.P.(C) 12922/2021 Page 5 of 7
financial institutions and secured creditors, stay granted by
the High Court would have serious adverse impact on the
financial health of such bodies/institutions, which (sic will)
ultimately prove detrimental to the economy of the nation.
Therefore, the High Court should be extremely careful and
circumspect in exercising its discretion to grant stay in such
matters. Of course, if the petitioner is able to show that
itscase falls within any of the exceptions carved out in
Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila
Parishad [AIR 1969 SC 556] , Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar
of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1] and Harbanslal Sahnia v.
Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. [(2003) 2 SCC 107] and some other
judgments, then the High Court may, after considering all
the relevant parameters and public interest, pass an
appropriate interim order."
Shrim Industries And Ors vs Bank Of Baroda And Anr on 10 November, 2021
8. It is clear from the above that the Chairperson of the DRAT has
jurisdiction to transfer a case from one DRT under his/her jurisdiction to
another DRT. In the present situation where the office of the Chairperson
of DRAT, Delhi is also vacant, this Court has taken the view that exercise
of such power by this Court would be the appropriate course, as the
petitioner's ordinary statutory remedy has been rendered unavailable for
reasons beyond its control. Enabling a party to invoke that remedy is
preferable to entertaining the case on merits in writ proceedings. Orders
to this effect have been passed inter alia in W.P.(C) 12125/2021 [Shrim
Industries And Ors. vs. Bank of Baroda And Anr.] and W.P.(C)
12595/2021 [Smt. Kamlesh vs. Indian Overseas Bank] on 10.11.2021.
Authorized Officer, State Bank Of ... vs Mathew K.C. on 30 January, 2018
11. The observations in Satyawati Tondon (supra) have been followed
by the Supreme Court inter alia in Authorized Officer, State Bank of
Travancore and Another vs. Mathew K.C. (2018) 3 SCC 85 [paragraphs
5, 9 to 15], and the recent judgment in C. Bright vs. District Collector and
Others (2021) 2 SCC 392 [paragraph 22].
C. Bright vs The District Collector on 5 November, 2020
11. The observations in Satyawati Tondon (supra) have been followed
by the Supreme Court inter alia in Authorized Officer, State Bank of
Travancore and Another vs. Mathew K.C. (2018) 3 SCC 85 [paragraphs
5, 9 to 15], and the recent judgment in C. Bright vs. District Collector and
Others (2021) 2 SCC 392 [paragraph 22].
The Recovery Of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993
Harbanslal Sahnia And Anr. vs Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. And Ors. on 20 December, 2002
46. It must be remembered that stay of an action initiated by
the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities for recovery of
taxes, cess, fees, etc. seriously impedes execution of projects
of public importance and disables them from discharging
their constitutional and legal obligations towards the
citizens. In cases relating to recovery of the dues of banks,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:18.11.2021
10:46:05 W.P.(C) 12922/2021 Page 5 of 7
financial institutions and secured creditors, stay granted by
the High Court would have serious adverse impact on the
financial health of such bodies/institutions, which (sic will)
ultimately prove detrimental to the economy of the nation.
Therefore, the High Court should be extremely careful and
circumspect in exercising its discretion to grant stay in such
matters. Of course, if the petitioner is able to show that
itscase falls within any of the exceptions carved out in
Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila
Parishad [AIR 1969 SC 556] , Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar
of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1] and Harbanslal Sahnia v.
Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. [(2003) 2 SCC 107] and some other
judgments, then the High Court may, after considering all
the relevant parameters and public interest, pass an
appropriate interim order."