Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.28 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
State Bank Of India vs V. Ramakrishnan on 14 August, 2018
"In the backdrop of the above this Court is inclined
to accept the argument of Mr. Rai for the bank that
the moratorium in respect of debt is restricted to
proceedings of recovery of any debt against the
respondent "in person". This is in harmony with dicta
at paragraph 20 in the Ramakrishnan Case (supra). To
stay wilful defaulter proceedings, criminal
proceeding or quasi criminal proceeding under any
Moratorium under Section 96 would defeat the object
and purpose of the part III of the IBC. Stay of such
collateral proceedings would also result in putting a
premium on the impropriety and illegality for which
the proceedings under Section 95 are initiated. The
argument of Mr. Rajarshi Dutta that the continuation
of the wilful defaulter proceedings would seriously
hamper and impede his client's ability to make good
repay or come up with; a scheme to satisfy creditors
is fallacious. Such stay would also amount to
permitting a wrong doer to commit a further wrongs
for the purpose of remedying an existing wrong. All
lenders are required to be put on notice of the
Wilful default who to prevent further erosion of
public finances. The observation in Para 22 do not
apply in this instant case as have not been applied
in the conclusion of the said decision.
M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India And Ors on 27 July, 1999
In other words, the doctrine of 'useless
formality theory' would surface, which aspect has
received the consideration of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of M.C.Mehta vs. Union of India - (1999)
6 SCC 237, and held to the following effect :
P. Mohanraj vs M/S. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd. on 1 March, 2021
7. The petitioner has placed reliance on the
observations made by the Apex Court in this
regard in the case of P Mohanraj (supra). The
relevant observations are made as under:
Rajendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh& Others on 8 August, 1996
We may also state that there is
yet another line of cases as in State Bank of
Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, and Rajendra Singh v. State
of M.P., that even in relation to statutory
provisions requiring notice, a distinction is to be
made between cases where the provision is intended
for individual benefit and where a provision is
intended to protect public interest. In the former
case, it can be waived while in the case of the
latter, it cannot be waived."
Section 95 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
State Bank Of Patiala & Ors vs S.K.Sharma on 27 March, 1996
We may also state that there is
yet another line of cases as in State Bank of
Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, and Rajendra Singh v. State
of M.P., that even in relation to statutory
provisions requiring notice, a distinction is to be
made between cases where the provision is intended
for individual benefit and where a provision is
intended to protect public interest. In the former
case, it can be waived while in the case of the
latter, it cannot be waived."
Ionic Metalliks & 3 vs Union Of India & 3 on 9 September, 2014
Similarly, the
observations made by the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Ionic Metalliks and Ors.
(supra) will not apply to the facts of the
present case since in the present case, the show-
cause notice already incorporates necessary
materials and details, on the basis of which the
petitioner is called upon to explain why he
should not be declared as Wilful Defaulter within
the meaning of the RBI Master Circular dated
01.07.2015.