Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.27 seconds)U.P. Financial Corporation vs Gem Cap (India) Pvt. Ltd. And Ors on 2 March, 1993
In this context, reference was made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in UP Financial Corporation v. Gem Cap India P Ltd reported in AIR 1993 SC 1435 for contending that the power of the Court to go into the loan transaction is limited.
Gajraj Jain vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 7 May, 2004
"14..... In the case of S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd.1 it has been held that the financial corporation, in the matter of sale under Section 29, must act in accordance with the statute and must not act unreasonably. In this case, the Corporation fails on both the counts. It has neither complied with the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 29, nor has it acted fairly. The test of reasonableness has been laid down in the above judgment in which it is held that reasonableness is to be tested against the dominant consideration to secure the best price. Value or price is fixed by the market. In the case of a going concern, one has to value the assets shown in the balance sheet (Datta, S.: Valuation of Real Property, p. 198). In our view, if the object of Section 29 of the Act is to obtain the best possible price then the Corporation ought to have called for the valuation report. This has not been done.......... If publicity and maximum participation is to be attained then the bidders should know the details of the assets (or itemised value). In the absence of the proper mechanism the auction-sale becomes only a pretence. ........ Lastly, in this case, the price of the assets is pegged to the dues of the Corporation and Central Bank of India. The assets are agreed to be sold to Respondent 4 not for the market price but against repayment of dues of the Corporation plus a promise to discharge the liability of Central Bank of India. Therefore, the Corporation, Respondent 2, has not acted reasonably. It has not taken any steps to secure the best price. In fact it has failed to protect the interest of Central Bank of India, which is having the second charge on the assets transferred to Respondent 4 as well as the mortgagor which would be entitled to the balance of the sale proceeds, if any. It was contended that as the bids were withdrawn, the offer of Respondent 4 was accepted. Even assuming for the sake of argument, that there were no offers except the offer of Respondent 4, it shows that value of the assets was Rs 198.85 lakhs (i.e. Rs 28.85 lakhs + Rs 170 lakhs). No reason has been given why Respondent 2 did not insist on downright payment of Rs 198.85 lakhs."
Karnataka State Industrial Investment ... vs Cavalet India Ltd. And Ors on 30 March, 2005
14.Subsequently, the previous judgments of the Supreme Court in the matter of interpretation of Section 29 of the SFC Act came to be reviewed by the Supreme Court in Karnataka State Industrial Investment & Development Corporaton Ltd. v. Cavalet India Ltd., reported in (2005) 4 SCC 456 and following guidelines were laid down in paragraph 19, which reads as follows:
M/S S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 17 March, 2004
16. In view of the above, while this Court is not inclined to order any revised repayment schedule. But at the same time, the impugned notice issued by the respondent TIIC does not satisfy the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases referred to above. Hence, the impugned notice is set aside with liberty to TIIC to issue fresh notification after assessing the value of the property and mention the same and also to fix the upset price before the auction is notified.
Falcon Retreat Pvt. Ltd. & Another vs Edc Ltd. & Ors on 24 August, 2006
11.In this context, it is necessary to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in Falcon Retreat (P) Ltd. v. EDC Ltd., reported in (2006) 13 SCC 223 relating to a State Financial Corporation. In paragraph 11, it was observed as follows:
1