Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.28 seconds)The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002
Section 17 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors vs Chhabil Dass Agarwal on 8 August, 2013
"5. We have considered the submissions on behalf of
the parties. Normally this Court in exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution is
loath to interfere with an interim order passed in a
pending proceeding before the High Court, except in
special circumstances, to prevent manifest injustice
or abuse of the process of the court. In the present
case, the facts are not in dispute. The discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226 is not absolute but has to
be exercised judiciously in the given facts of a case
and in accordance with law. The normal rule is that a
writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
ought not to be entertained if alternate statutory
remedies are available, except in cases falling within
::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2022 20:03:08 :::CIS
12
the well-defined exceptions as observed in CIT v.
Chhabil Dass Agarwal [CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal,
.
The Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank ... vs Meenal Agarwal on 15 December, 2021
Time Settlement Scheme. In a given case, it may happen
that a person would borrow a huge amount, for example
Rs. 100 crores. After availing the loan, he may deliberately
not pay any amount towards installments, though able to
make the payment. He would wait for the OTS Scheme
and then pray for grant of benefit under the OTS Scheme
under which, always a lesser amount than the amount
due and payable under the loan account will have to be
paid. This, despite there being all possibility for recovery
of the entire loan amount which can be realised by selling
the mortgaged/secured properties. If it is held that the
borrower can still, as a matter of right, pray for benefit
under the OTS Scheme, in that case, it would be giving a
premium to a dishonest borrower, who, despite the fact
that he is able to make the payment and the fact that the
bank is able to recover the entire loan amount even by
selling the mortgaged/secured properties, either from the
borrower and/or guarantor. This is because under the OTS
Scheme a debtor has to pay a lesser amount than the
actual amount due and payable under the loan account.
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 [AIR 1969 SC 556], Whirlpool Corpn. v.
Registrar of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1] and Harbanslal
Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. [(2003) 2 SCC 107] and
some other judgments, then the High Court may,
::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2022 20:03:08 :::CIS
8
after considering all the relevant parameters and
public interest, pass an appropriate interim order." 7
.