Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.41 seconds)

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay-I vs Suessin Textiles, Ball Bearing & ... on 11 January, 1979

The grim situation therefore is that, there is a stalemate created. Huge outstanding are payable by the respondent No. 1 company, which is neck-deep in financial trouble. There are almost no hopes whatsoever indicating that they would come out of these financial crisis. The respondent No. 1's position has become like sinking ship with no help coming from any direction. They were hoping for restructuring but that also has been dashed inasmuch as General Motors, on whom, they were pinning down their hopes, have started a plant at Gujarat with technology used by parent Daewoo company and General Motors, in no uncertain terms have written a letter to the respondent No. 1 that they are not interested in their plant and machinery. Parent company in Korea itself is on the verge of closure. What is at stake is public money. The applicant Bank so also the other Banks and financial institutions would suffer irreparable loss if the required protection is not given by the Court at this juncture. Under these circumstances, it is in the interest of all the parties and in the interest of national economy to take recourse to the salutary principles laid down by the Supreme Court in I.C.I.C.I. Ltd. v. Karnataka Ball Bearings Ltd. (supra). The plant and machinery has to be sold and dues are to be recovered.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

State Bank Of India vs Trade Aid Paper And Allied Products ... on 25 May, 1995

The Supreme Court, thus, observed that the Court may appoint Receiver not only as a matter of course but as a matter of prudence, having regard to the justice of the situation and can empower him to sell the assets before the decree is passed. The Supreme Court in fact commented on the observations made by the Bombay High Court in the case of State Bank of India v. Trade Aid Paper and Allied Products (India) Limited, I (1996) BC 309=AIR 1993 Bombay 268, that "in no case immovable properly should be sold by the Receiver before passing of the decree in favour of the Bank or financial institution." While commenting upon Bombay Authority, the Supreme Court commented that though the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court has recorded that the Court should be conscious of present market tendencies and grant of loan by the Banks and financial institutions for the purposes of industrial growth and development in the country and should be pragmatic in exercising powers under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this pragmatism has been given restrictive meaning by debarring the sale of the immovable property prior to decree in favour of the Bank.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 80 - S H Kapadia - Full Document
1