Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)
Hdfc Bank Limited vs The Recovery Officer-1 on 20 June, 2019 cites

Allahabad Bank vs Canara Bank & Another on 10 April, 2000

10. I have considered the respective submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Supreme Court in the case of ALLAHABAD BANK, supra, has held that even when a 13 winding up order has been passed against a Company, the adjudication of liability, and execution of the recovery certificate in respect of debt payable to the financial institutions lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of Debt Recovery Tribunal and in such a case, the Company Courts jurisdiction under Sections 442, 537 and 446 of the Act stands ousted. It has further been held that no leave of the Company Court is necessary for initiating the proceeding under the 1993 Act nor can Company Court transfer to it or otherwise interfere with such proceeding. It has further been held that since the 1993 Act is a special law, it prevails over the general law, namely the Act. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, there is no legal impediment in the Recovery Officer proceeding further with the recovery proceedings under the 1993 Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 81 - Cited by 627 - M J Rao - Full Document

M/S Anita International vs Tungabadra Sugar Works Maz.Sangh & Ors on 4 July, 2016

12. Sofar as decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of ANITA INTERNATIONAL, supra, is concerned, in the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court has dealt with the validity of the conditions imposed by the Company Court for permitting the Financial Institution to proceed with the recovery proceeding before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. In the aforesaid context, it was held that the order passed by the Company Court was binding before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Besides that, it is pertinent to mention here that in paragraph 51 of the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court has held that the issue under consideration in the aforesaid decision is whether or not an order passed by the Company Court was binding on the Recovery Officer and whether the proceeding conducted by the Recovery Officer in violation of the above order were sustainable in law. The aforesaid issue does not arise for consideration in this petition. Therefore, the aforesaid decision has no application to the obtaining factual matrix of the case as 16 the petitioner - Bank in the instant case has sought quashment of order of attachment of assets and has sought permission to surrender the shares.
Supreme Court of India Cites 77 - Cited by 37 - J S Khehar - Full Document
1   2 Next