Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.83 seconds)
M/S Tirupati Storage And Allied Pvt. Ltd vs Uco Bank Frazer Road Branch on 16 April, 2026 cites

Haji Rahim Bux And Sons And Ors. vs Firm Samiullah And Sons on 18 December, 1962

"4...It is the contention of the appellant that the expression. "entertain" found in the proviso refers to the initiation of the proceedings and not to the stage when the court takes up, the application for consideration. This; contention was rejected by the High Court relying on the decision of that court in Kundan Lal v. Jagan Nath Sharma .The same view had been taken by the said High Court in Dhoom Chand Jain v. Chamanlal Gupta and Haji Rahim Bux and Sons v. Firm Samiullah and Sons and again in Mahavir Singh v. Gauri Shankar. These decisions have interpreted the expression "entertain" as meaning 'adjudicate upon' or 'proceed to consider on merits'.
Allahabad High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 43 - Full Document

M/S Sai Enterprises And 2 Others vs Debts Recovery Appellate And Another on 17 March, 2023

"6....Though the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 has tried to argue the matter on merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to go into the same as the only issue before this Court is as to whether the DRAT, Allahabad had the power or jurisdiction to recall its own order which had attained finality after the dimissal of the CWJC, that too after lapse of more than eight years. Admittedly, there is no specific provision in the Act for recalling or reviewing the orders passed by the Tribunal. It is settled principles of law that unless and until the statute confers the power of review/recall, the Tribunal cannot exercise the power of review more so, after the lapse of more than eight years. Further, it is pertinent to mention that the orders of Tribunal dated 13.02.2015 & 23.03.2015 were already challenged before this Court in CWJC No. 4678 of 2015. The said CWJC was dismissed on 27.06.2023 confirming the earlier orders passed. Once an order has been challenged before a superior Forums/Court and the same has been confirmed and become final, the Tribunal/Forum which has passed the order cannot review or recall its own orders. Further, it is pertinent to note that in the impugned order, the Tribunal has not given any reason for recalling its earlier order except adverting to the judgement of the Allahabad High Court passed in Writ-C No. 7439 of 2023 in the case of M/s Sai Enterprises & 2 Ors. Vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal & Anr. decided on 17.03.2023 which is distinguishable on the facts of this particular case. 7. Having regard to the same, the present writ petition is allowed, the impugned order passed by the DRAT, Allahabad dated 29.09.2023 is set aside."
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - P Bhatia - Full Document

Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union vs Management Of M/S. Birla Cotton ... on 16 March, 2005

19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2005) 13 SCC 777, has elaborately explained the distinction between review on merits and procedural recall, holding that where an order is vitiated on account of a procedural illegality which goes to the root of the matter, the Tribunal has the power to recall such order without entering into the merits. It was further held that such power is exercised to correct proceedings which stand vitiated due to procedural defects, and the matter must be re-heard in accordance with law. The relevant part of the said order reads as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 182 - B P Singh - Full Document

Hindusthan Commercial Bank Ltd. vs Punnu Sahu (Dead) Through Legal ... on 1 December, 1969

27. A similar view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindusthan Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Punnu Sahu reported in (1971) 3 SCC 124, wherein it was held that the expression "entertain" has been consistently understood to mean "adjudicate upon" or "proceed to consider on merits", and not the initiation of proceedings. The said interpretation, as adopted in earlier decisions of the Allahabad High Court, was expressly approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The relevant part of the said order reads as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 56 - Full Document

Kundan Lal vs Jagan Nath Sharma on 9 March, 1962

"4...It is the contention of the appellant that the expression. "entertain" found in the proviso refers to the initiation of the proceedings and not to the stage when the court takes up, the application for consideration. This; contention was rejected by the High Court relying on the decision of that court in Kundan Lal v. Jagan Nath Sharma .The same view had been taken by the said High Court in Dhoom Chand Jain v. Chamanlal Gupta and Haji Rahim Bux and Sons v. Firm Samiullah and Sons and again in Mahavir Singh v. Gauri Shankar. These decisions have interpreted the expression "entertain" as meaning 'adjudicate upon' or 'proceed to consider on merits'.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Mahavir Singh And Anr. vs Gauri Shankar And Ors. on 27 March, 1963

"4...It is the contention of the appellant that the expression. "entertain" found in the proviso refers to the initiation of the proceedings and not to the stage when the court takes up, the application for consideration. This; contention was rejected by the High Court relying on the decision of that court in Kundan Lal v. Jagan Nath Sharma .The same view had been taken by the said High Court in Dhoom Chand Jain v. Chamanlal Gupta and Haji Rahim Bux and Sons v. Firm Samiullah and Sons and again in Mahavir Singh v. Gauri Shankar. These decisions have interpreted the expression "entertain" as meaning 'adjudicate upon' or 'proceed to consider on merits'.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1   2 Next