Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.30 seconds)
Maharaj Ji Education Trust And Ors. vs Punjab And Sind Bank And Ors. on 11 May, 2007 cites

Central Bank Of India vs Ravindra And Ors on 18 October, 2001

Various judgments and comments on the point of amalgamated investment and Section 34 of CPC, settlement, pari materia and other similar matters of foreign Courts as well as that of Hon'ble Apex Court and High Courts have been placed before this Tribunal from the side of the appellants, but these are also not of much help after the judgment of Central Bank of India v. Ravindra (supra) as discussed above on relevant point of dispute about interest, etc. A line has been tried to be drawn by pointing out towards the general principle of interpretation and pari materia from the side of the appellants, but these rulings are superfluous for the purposes of this case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 973 - Full Document

M/S Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors on 12 December, 1978

14. As already submitted from the side of the appellants that the two accounts of the loan were taken as Non Performing Assets (N.P.A.) as per the Guidelines of the R.B.I. from the date when last transaction took place in those two accounts. The Guidelines of the R.B.I, have statutory force, therefore, keeping in view the letter dated 18th June, 2005 Annexure III of the paper book of the memo of appeal an invitation was extended from the side of the Bank for settlement. It is pointed out that in above letter Annexure III Bank as usual as showing its interest in settlement came forward for having talks when the question of settlement of the amount involved relying upon the ruling of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mill Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. (supra), wherein the matter of principle of promissory estoppel has been discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is argued that the settlement was arrived at the initiation of the respondent No. 1-Bank itself, therefore, it should be taken that the settlement was complete.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 1143 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

B.S.N.L. & Ors vs M/S. Subash Chandra Kanchan & Anr on 13 September, 2006

Ltd. v. Arvind Bhai Ram Bhai Patel ; The Union of India v. Kishori Lal Gupta 1960 SCC 493; Indu Shekhar Singh v. State of U.P. ; B.S.N.L. v. Subash Chandra Kanchan , Jai Narayan Parasrampuria (Dead) v. Pushpa Devi Saraf III (2006) CLT 297 (SC) : (2006) SCC 756; Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly . On the point of applicability of principle of estoppel, it is argued that now the contesting respondent-Bank cannot claim anything against the aforesaid settlement. Learned Counsel for the appellants has taken this Tribunal through the record and has argued that both accounts of the loan were taken as Non Performing Assets (N.P.A.) as per the Guidelines of R.B.I, and for this he has pointed out that an account is taken to be N.P.A. on the date when the last transaction took place in that account. He has persuaded this Tribunal to note that the first term loan of Rs. 9.36 crores became N.P.A. on 1st April, 2005, whereas the second term loan of Rs. 10 crores became N.P.A. on 5th June, 2000.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 48 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Jai Narain Parasurampuria (Dead) & Ors vs Pushpa Devi Saraf & Ors on 24 August, 2006

Ltd. v. Arvind Bhai Ram Bhai Patel ; The Union of India v. Kishori Lal Gupta 1960 SCC 493; Indu Shekhar Singh v. State of U.P. ; B.S.N.L. v. Subash Chandra Kanchan , Jai Narayan Parasrampuria (Dead) v. Pushpa Devi Saraf III (2006) CLT 297 (SC) : (2006) SCC 756; Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly . On the point of applicability of principle of estoppel, it is argued that now the contesting respondent-Bank cannot claim anything against the aforesaid settlement. Learned Counsel for the appellants has taken this Tribunal through the record and has argued that both accounts of the loan were taken as Non Performing Assets (N.P.A.) as per the Guidelines of R.B.I, and for this he has pointed out that an account is taken to be N.P.A. on the date when the last transaction took place in that account. He has persuaded this Tribunal to note that the first term loan of Rs. 9.36 crores became N.P.A. on 1st April, 2005, whereas the second term loan of Rs. 10 crores became N.P.A. on 5th June, 2000.
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 164 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Central Inland Water ... vs Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr on 6 April, 1986

Ltd. v. Arvind Bhai Ram Bhai Patel ; The Union of India v. Kishori Lal Gupta 1960 SCC 493; Indu Shekhar Singh v. State of U.P. ; B.S.N.L. v. Subash Chandra Kanchan , Jai Narayan Parasrampuria (Dead) v. Pushpa Devi Saraf III (2006) CLT 297 (SC) : (2006) SCC 756; Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly . On the point of applicability of principle of estoppel, it is argued that now the contesting respondent-Bank cannot claim anything against the aforesaid settlement. Learned Counsel for the appellants has taken this Tribunal through the record and has argued that both accounts of the loan were taken as Non Performing Assets (N.P.A.) as per the Guidelines of R.B.I, and for this he has pointed out that an account is taken to be N.P.A. on the date when the last transaction took place in that account. He has persuaded this Tribunal to note that the first term loan of Rs. 9.36 crores became N.P.A. on 1st April, 2005, whereas the second term loan of Rs. 10 crores became N.P.A. on 5th June, 2000.
Supreme Court of India Cites 111 - Cited by 1191 - D P Madon - Full Document

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Ramesh Bhai C. Patel And Ors. on 7 February, 1997

Ltd. v. Arvind Bhai Ram Bhai Patel ; The Union of India v. Kishori Lal Gupta 1960 SCC 493; Indu Shekhar Singh v. State of U.P. ; B.S.N.L. v. Subash Chandra Kanchan , Jai Narayan Parasrampuria (Dead) v. Pushpa Devi Saraf III (2006) CLT 297 (SC) : (2006) SCC 756; Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly . On the point of applicability of principle of estoppel, it is argued that now the contesting respondent-Bank cannot claim anything against the aforesaid settlement. Learned Counsel for the appellants has taken this Tribunal through the record and has argued that both accounts of the loan were taken as Non Performing Assets (N.P.A.) as per the Guidelines of R.B.I, and for this he has pointed out that an account is taken to be N.P.A. on the date when the last transaction took place in that account. He has persuaded this Tribunal to note that the first term loan of Rs. 9.36 crores became N.P.A. on 1st April, 2005, whereas the second term loan of Rs. 10 crores became N.P.A. on 5th June, 2000.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 15 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next