Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.21 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]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Punjab National Bank vs O.C. Krishnan And Ors on 13 August, 2001
9. Even prior to the SARFAESI Act, considering the
alternate remedy available under the DRT Act it was held
in Punjab National Bank vs. O.C. Krishnan and others, (2001)
6 SCC 569, that :-
Union Bank Of India & Anr vs Panchanan Subudhi on 2 March, 2009
In Union Bank of India and another vs. Panchanan
Subudhi, 2010 (15) SCC 552, further proceedings
under Section 13(4) were stayed in the writ jurisdiction
subject to deposit of Rs.10,00,000/- leading this Court to
observe as follows :
Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 7 February, 2011
12. The same view was reiterated in Kanaiyalal
Lalchand Sachdev and others vs. State of Maharashtra and
others, 2011 (2) SCC 782 observing:
Sadhana Lodh vs National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr on 24 January, 2003
"23. In our opinion, therefore, the High Court rightly
dismissed the petition on the ground that an efficacious remedy
was available to the appellants under Section 17 of the Act. It is
well settled that ordinarily relief under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India is not available if an efficacious alternative
remedy is available to any aggrieved person. (See Sadhana Lodh
v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.; Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander
Rai and SBI v. Allied Chemical Laboratories.)"
Surya Dev Rai vs Ram Chander Rai & Ors on 7 August, 2003
"23. In our opinion, therefore, the High Court rightly
dismissed the petition on the ground that an efficacious remedy
was available to the appellants under Section 17 of the Act. It is
well settled that ordinarily relief under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India is not available if an efficacious alternative
remedy is available to any aggrieved person. (See Sadhana Lodh
v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.; Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander
Rai and SBI v. Allied Chemical Laboratories.)"
Babu Ram Prakash Chandra Maheshwari vs Antarim Zila Parishad Muzaffar Nagar on 2 August, 1968
"46. It must be remembered that stay of an action initiated
by the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities for recovery of
taxes, cess, fees, etc. seriously impedes execution of projects of
public importance and disables them from discharging their
constitutional and legal obligations towards the citizens. 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 (sic 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. Of course, if the petitioner is able to
show that its case falls within any of the exceptions carved out
in Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila
Parishad, Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade
Marks and Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and some
other judgments, then the High Court may, after considering all
the relevant parameters and public interest, pass an appropriate
interim order."