Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (0.26 seconds)
Dlf Limited vs Punjab National Bank on 27 May, 2011 cites

Abl International Ltd. & Anr vs Export Credit Guarantee Corportion Of ... on 18 December, 2003

4. The senior counsel for the petitioner in addition to the arguments already noticed above has contended that the terms of the Loan Agreement between the parties having been reduced to writing, no other evidence can be looked at under Sections 91 & 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and thus the only question involved is of the interpretation of the Loan Agreement and the RBI guidelines and Fair Practices Code aforesaid and no disputed question of fact requiring any further evidence can be said to be arising in the matter. Reliance is placed on ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 553 laying down that in appropriate cases the writ court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact and that where W.P.(C) 8520/2010 Page 8 of 32 disputed questions of fact pertaining to the interpretation/meaning of documents are involved the Courts can very well go into the same and decide the objections if the facts so permit; it was further held that merely because one of the parties wants to dispute the meaning of a document, would not make it a disputed fact.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 1154 - Full Document

Ulagappa And Ors. vs Divn. Commr. And Ors. on 26 July, 2000

5. The senior counsel for the respondent Bank per contra has by drawing attention to the prayer paragraph of the writ petition contended that the writ petition seeking to restrain the respondent Bank from downgrading the account of the petitioner or reporting the petitioner as a defaulter, without the respondent Bank doing so is premature; it is urged that before effecting the same, as per the prescribed rules, hearing has to be given to the defaulter. Reliance is placed on Ulagappa v. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore (2001) 10 SCC 639 where writ petition against a mere proposal was held to be premature and it was held that right to sue / challenge would accrue only on issuance of Notification including an area within the Panchayat limits.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 147 - V N Khare - Full Document

State Of U.P. & Ors vs Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd on 20 August, 1996

9. The senior counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder has contended that the respondent Bank having accepted the pre-payment tendered to it was not entitled to thereafter debit pre-payment charges to the petitioner; it is W.P.(C) 8520/2010 Page 13 of 32 contended that the respondent Bank ought not to have accepted the pre- payment or ought to have returned the amount received if so not willing for the same and having accepted the same cannot thereafter levy pre-payment charges. It is also urged that in the Loan Agreement there is no prohibition against pre-payment. The judgment in Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. (supra) is sought to be distinguished by contending that the view taken therein was for the reason of existence of an arbitration clause and which is not the case here.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 457 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Neeraj Malhotra vs Deustche Post Bank Home Finance Ltd. & ... on 2 December, 2010

The senior counsels for the parties however fairly stated that the question of validity of pre-payment charges had not been agitated in any Court except before the Competition Commission in Neeraj Malhotra (supra) aforesaid and where the same has been upheld. The legal question though interesting is not taken up in this writ petition in as much as the same was raised by the Court of its own initiative and since the counsels were not given full opportunity to address thereon.
Competition Commission of India Cites 24 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

N. Subramania Iyer vs The Official Receiver, Quilon on 24 May, 1957

10. I had during the course of hearing raised the question of the very validity of pre-payment charges especially in the Indian context and if not in relation to the corporate loans as in the present case, at least in relation W.P.(C) 8520/2010 Page 14 of 32 to personal loans. Debts/borrowing have always been recognized in India as onerous and not merely as commercial transaction but also as moral obligation; to remain under debt and/or to not pay the debt has always been understood not merely as a legal/contractual default but also as moral turpitude. Till as recently as in 2006, the law recognized the ancient principle of pious obligation of a son to discharge debts of his father. The question which arises is whether a person can be compelled to remain a borrower or under a debt. The answer to me appears to be no. I find the Three Judge Bench of Supreme Court also in N. Subramania Iyer v. Official Receiver, Quilon AIR 1958 SC 1 to have expressed a view that an honest borrower/debtor should be released from his multifarious obligations at the earliest.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 33 - B P Sinha - Full Document

Yashoda Hospital And Research Centre ... vs Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd. ... on 22 March, 2011

12. I also find two of the members of the Competition Commission in Neeraj Malhotra to have written dissenting opinions. One of the said dissenting members, in his dissenting opinion subsequently also in judgment in Yashoda Hospital & Research Centre Ltd. Vs. Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd. MANU/CO/0009/2011 relying upon various foreign judgments, again held pre-payment charges to be invalid.
Competition Commission of India Cites 19 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next