Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.20 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 17 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
United Bank Of India vs Satyawati Tondon & Ors on 26 July, 2010
"22. Even though, this Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati
Tondon [United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) 8 SCC 110
(2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 260] held that in cases relating to recovery of the
dues of banks, 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 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.
Section 14 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
State Bank Of Travancore vs General Secretary, Association Of The ... on 16 January, 1978
"2. Despite several judgments of this Court, including a judgment
by Hon'ble Navin Sinha, J., as recently as on 30-1-2018, in State Bank of
Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C.,
(2018) 3 SCC 85 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 41] , the High Courts continue to
entertain matters which arise under the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act, 2002 (SARFAESI), and keep granting interim orders in favour of
persons who are non-performing assets (NPAs)."
Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd vs Prem Heavy Engineeing Work on 7 May, 1997
3. The writ petition itself was not maintainable, as a result of
which, in view of our recent judgment, which has followed earlier
judgments of this Court, held as follows: (SCC p. 94, para 17)
"17. We cannot help but disapprove the approach of the
____________
Page 6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.27204 of 2022
High Court for reasons already noticed in Dwarikesh Sugar Industries
Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. [Dwarikesh Sugar
Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd., (1997) 6 SCC
450] , observing: (SCC p. 463, para 32)
Agarwal Tracom Pvt. Ltd. vs Punjab National Bank on 27 November, 2017
(iv) In Agarwal Tracom (P) Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank (2018) 1
SCC 626, the Apex Court has held as follows:-
Phoenix Arc Private Limited vs Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir on 12 January, 2022
(vii) As regards the non-maintainability of the writ petition against
Private financial institutions like asserts re-construction companies in respect of
their action under SARFAESI Act, it is relevant to consider the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya
Mandir, (2022) 5 SCC 345 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 44, wherein, it has been
held as follows:-
Praga Tools Corporation vs Shri C. A. Imanual & Ors on 19 February, 1969
____________
Page 9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.27204 of 2022
''18. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that a writ petition
against the private financial institution — ARC — the appellant herein
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the proposed
action/actions under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act can be said to be
not maintainable. In the present case, the ARC proposed to take
action/actions under the SARFAESI Act to recover the borrowed amount
as a secured creditor. The ARC as such cannot be said to be performing
public functions which are normally expected to be performed by the
State authorities. During the course of a commercial transaction and
under the contract, the bank/ARC lent the money to borrowers herein and
therefore the said activity of the bank/ARC cannot be said to be as
performing a public function which is normally expected to be performed
by the State authorities. If proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI
Act and/or any proposed action is to be taken and the borrower is
aggrieved by any of the actions of the private bank/bank/ARC, borrower
has to avail the remedy under SARFAESI Act and no writ petition would
lie and/or is maintainable and/or entertainable. Therefore, decisions of
this Court in Praga Tools Corpn. [Praga Tools Corpn. v. C.A. Manual,
(1969) 1 SCC 585] and Ramesh Ahiuwalia [Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of
Punjab, (2012; 12 SCC 331 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 456: 4 SCEC 715]
relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the borrowers
are not of any assistance to the borrowers."