Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.61 seconds)Mahesh Chandra vs Regional Manager, U.P. Financial ... on 12 February, 1992
2. The claim of the petitioner is resisted by respondent No. 1, the G.S.F.C., by filing its affidavit in reply. It is contended that the action taken by respondent No. 1 is within the purview of the provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, and this is not a fit case for interference of the High Court by exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with their statutory action against the petitioner. It is contended that they had given sufficient and ample opportunities to the petitioner to come out of his financial difficulties as well as in making payment of the dues. But the same was not availed of by the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner that the action taken by them is contrary to the provisions of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh, Chandra v. U.P. Financial Corporation [1993] 78 Comp Cas 1; AIR 1993 SC 935, is not correct. Thus, it is contended that the petitioner's petition be dismissed.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The State Financial Corporations Act, 1951
U.P. Financial Corporation And Ors vs Naini Oxygen And Acetylene Gas Ltd. And ... on 22 November, 1994
Therefore, he cannot now ask the court to interfere with the administrative action of respondent No. 1 when he is neither alleging any mala tides on the part of respondent No. 1 nor is in a position to show any mala fides, consequently his petition will have to be dismissed as has been laid down by the apex court in the case of U.P. Financial Corporation v. Naini Oxygen and Acetylene Gas Ltd. [1995] 82 Comp Cas 671; [1995] 2 SCC 754, wherein the following principles have been laid down.
U.P. Financial Corporation vs Gem Cap (India) Pvt. Ltd. And Ors on 2 March, 1993
In the subsequent case of U.P. Financial Corporation v. Gem Cap (India) Pvt. Ltd. [1993] 78 Comp Cas 408; AIR 1993 SC 1435, it has been held that the financial corporation is not like an ordinary money-lender and that it has to act fairly. The fairness required of the corporation however cannot be carried to the extent of disabling it from recovering what is due to it. The High Court cannot sit over the administrative decision of the financial corporation as an appellate authority, by laying down the following principles (page 415) :
Karnataka State Financial Corporation vs Micro Cast Rubber & Allied Products (P) ... on 3 June, 1996
Therefore, in the circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the administrative action of respondent No. 1 as has been held by the apex court in the case of Karnataka State Financial Corporation v. Micro Cast Rubber and Allied Products (P) Ltd. [1996] 6 JT 37; [1997] 88 Comp Cas 221. It is very pertinent to note that there is no allegation by the petitioner that the action of respondent No. 1 against him is a mala fide one. Though the petitioner was given ample opportunities to overcome the situation which he is now facing, he has not availed of the said opportunities.
1