Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.28 seconds)

State Bank Of India vs Smt. Kusum Vallabhdas Thakkar on 23 January, 1991

30. The learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority wrongly relied on Judgement in the matter of "State Bank of India vs. Kusum Vallabhdas Thakkar." In Para 19 (reproduced supra) of the Impugned Order, the Adjudicating Authority referred to the said Judgement and observed that the position of law is not altered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision of "Anuj Jain". Judgment in the matter of "Smt. Kusum" was referred in the Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Anuj Jain" in Para - 51 and after discussing the ratio of the said Judgement, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para - 51.4 observed that it was difficult to stretch the ratio of the said decision which appears to be applied to the issue at hand concerning definition of financial debt. The issue in that case was in the context of mortgage. In any case, even if we do not refer to the Judgement in the matter of "Smt. Kusum", in the facts of the present matter, we find that the Impugned Order has rightly concluded that the claim as made by Respondent No.2 - OBC and Respondent No.3 - India Bulls was correctly admitted by RP treating them as Financial Creditors for the amounts stated.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr vs M/S Jagdamba Oil Mills & Anr on 28 January, 2002

"41.1.5. For taking into comprehension the ratio of Pioneer Urban (supra) and for its application to the question at hand, appropriate it would be to recount the basic principles expounded and explained by a three-Judge Bench in the case of Haryana Financial Corporation and Anr. v. Jagdamba Oil Mills and Anr. MANU/SC/0056/2002 : (2002) 3 SCC 496 that the observations of the Court in a judgment are always required to be read in the context in which they appear. This Court has said,-
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 526 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 Next