Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.42 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
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, [1969 AIR 556, 1969 SCR (1) 518], Whirlpool
Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1], and
Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. [AIR 2003 SC
W.A.41/2021
5
2120] and some other judgments, then the High Court may,
after considering all the relevant parameters and public
interest, pass an appropriate interim order."
Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors on 26 October, 1998
"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, [1969 AIR 556, 1969 SCR (1) 518], Whirlpool
Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1], and
Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. [AIR 2003 SC
W.A.41/2021
5
2120] and some other judgments, then the High Court may,
after considering all the relevant parameters and public
interest, pass an appropriate interim order."
Harbanslal Sahnia And Anr. vs Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. And Ors. on 20 December, 2002
"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, [1969 AIR 556, 1969 SCR (1) 518], Whirlpool
Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1], and
Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. [AIR 2003 SC
W.A.41/2021
5
2120] and some other judgments, then the High Court may,
after considering all the relevant parameters and public
interest, pass an appropriate interim order."
Authorized Officer, State Bank Of ... vs Mathew K.C. on 30 January, 2018
In Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore
W.A.41/2021
4
and Another v. Mathew K.C. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 85, at paragraphs 15
to 18, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 17 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd vs Prem Heavy Engineeing Work on 7 May, 1997
18. The impugned orders are therefore contrary to the law laid
down by this Court under Art.141 of the Constitution and unsustainable.
They are therefore set aside and the appeal is allowed ."
United Bank Of India vs Satyawati Tondon & Ors on 26 July, 2010
"15. It is the solemn duty of the Court to apply the correct law without
waiting for an objection to be raised by a party, especially when the law
stands well settled. Any departure, if permissible, has to be for reasons
discussed, of the case falling under a defined exception, duly discussed
after noticing the relevant law. In financial matters grant of ex-parte
interim orders can have a deleterious effect and it is not sufficient to say
that the aggrieved has the remedy to move for vacating the interim
order. Loans by financial institutions are granted from public money
generated at the tax payers expense. Such loan does not become the
property of the person taking the loan, but retains its character of public
money given in a fiduciary capacity as entrustment by the public. Timely
repayment also ensures liquidity to facilitate loan to another in need, by
circulation of the money and cannot be permitted to be blocked by
frivolous litigation by those who can afford the luxury of the same. The
caution required, as expressed in United Bank of India v. Satyawati
Tondon and others [AIR 2010 SC 3413], has also not been kept in mind
before passing the impugned interim order:-
1