Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.29 seconds)Section 20 in The Recovery Of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993 [Entire Act]
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs S.S. Akolkar on 25 January, 1996
After coming to know about the death, his Counsel informed the Bank with a request to ascertain the names of his heirs. The Branch Manager after inquiry furnished the name of legal heirs of N.D. Singh and, thereafter, the petition for substitution was filed. A rejoinder to the said petition was filed on behalf of the defendants opposing the prayer for substitution on the ground that it is barred by limitation and no prayer for condoning the delay and setting aside abatement has been made. The Presiding Officer of the Tribunal after hearing the parties passed a reasoned order allowing the substitution petition relying upon a decision in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. S.S. Akolkar AIR 1996 S.C. 984 on 17.5.2000 which has been impugned in this writ application.
Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd vs State Of Orissa on 13 April, 1983
In the case of Titaghur Paper Mills Company Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors. , the Apex Court has held that if the Act provides appeal and second appeal; the writ petition is not maintainable. In the instant case also, appeal from the order of the Tribunal has been provided before the Appellate Tribunal. Moreover, Sub-section (6) of Section 20 of the Act says that the appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal shall be dealt with by it as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made by it to dispose of the appeal finally within six months from the date of receipt of the appeal. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no efficacious remedy to the aggrieved person.
Section 31 in The Recovery Of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993 [Entire Act]
1