Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.30 seconds)Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment ... vs Millenium Business Solutions Pvt on 20 December, 2004
In Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Vs. Millenium Business Solutions Private Limited, 2004 (5) CTC 689, it has been held that this Court cannot pass any such order in writ jurisdiction, since directing one time settlement or granting installments is really re-scheduling the loan, which can only be done by the bank or financial institution which granted the loan. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot reschedule a loan. A writ is issued when there is violation of law or error of law apparent on the face of the record, and not for rescheduling loans. The Court must exercise restraint in such matters, and not depart from well settled legal principles".
The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002
Chandra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 22 July, 2003
"46. Writ is a discretionary remedy, and hence this Court under Article 226 is not bound to interfere even if there is a technical violation of law, vide R.Nanjappan v. The District Collector, Coimbatore reported in 2005 WLR 47; Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan reported in JT 2003 (6) SC 20; The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai Division-IV) Ltd., Dindigul v. P.Ellappan reported in 2005 (1) MLJ 639; Ramniklal N.Bhutta and Another v. State of Maharashtra reported in 1997 (1) SCC 134, etc."
Ramniklal N. Bhutta & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 19 November, 1996
"46. Writ is a discretionary remedy, and hence this Court under Article 226 is not bound to interfere even if there is a technical violation of law, vide R.Nanjappan v. The District Collector, Coimbatore reported in 2005 WLR 47; Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan reported in JT 2003 (6) SC 20; The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai Division-IV) Ltd., Dindigul v. P.Ellappan reported in 2005 (1) MLJ 639; Ramniklal N.Bhutta and Another v. State of Maharashtra reported in 1997 (1) SCC 134, etc."
M/S Prestige Lights Ltd vs State Bank Of India on 20 August, 2007
26. On the aspect, as to whether, a borrower, who has obtained an interim order and failed to comply with the same, is entitled to be heard further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prestige Lights Ltd., v. State Bank of India reported in (2007) 8 SCC 449, at paragraph Nos.20, 22, 24 and 26, held as follows:
The Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) ... vs The State Of West Bengal And Others on 5 February, 1962
8. No doubt Article 226 on its plain language states that a writ can be used by the High Court for enforcing a fundamental right or for 'any other purpose'. However, by judician interpretation the words 'any other purpose' have been interpreted to mean the enforcement of any legal right or performance of any legal duty, vide Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1963 SC 1044. In the present case, the writ petitioner has really prayed for a Mandamus to the Corporation to grant it a one time settlement, but no violation of any law has been pointed out. In our opinion, no such mandamus can be issued in this case, and hence the writ petition should not have been entertained. A mandamus is issued only when the petitioner can show that he has a legal right to the performance of a public duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought.
Section 62 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Nanjappan, Thirumoorthy, Moorthy, ... vs The Sub Inspector Of Police ... on 9 July, 2002
"46. Writ is a discretionary remedy, and hence this Court under Article 226 is not bound to interfere even if there is a technical violation of law, vide R.Nanjappan v. The District Collector, Coimbatore reported in 2005 WLR 47; Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan reported in JT 2003 (6) SC 20; The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai Division-IV) Ltd., Dindigul v. P.Ellappan reported in 2005 (1) MLJ 639; Ramniklal N.Bhutta and Another v. State of Maharashtra reported in 1997 (1) SCC 134, etc."
1