Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.43 seconds)Section 29 in The State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 29 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 32 in The State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Mahesh Chandra vs Regional Manager, U.P. Financial ... on 12 February, 1992
In Hotel Babadham v. Bihar State Financial Corporation (10), Division Bench of Patna High Court observed that the ruling of the Supreme Court in Mahesh Chandra v. U.P. Financial Corporation (supra) that if the borrower is willing to offer the sale price he should be offered the same facility and the unit should be transferred to him, should not be applied in a case where the borrower fails to avail of the offer made to him. it was a case where the petitioners' offer in March, 1992, to deposit the sale price offered by the tenderer had been accepted by the Corporation, but the cheques issued by the petitioners were dishonoured; again, in October, 1992, the petitioners were given an opportunity by the Court in a writ petition to pay off their dues, but instead of accepting the fair offer of the Corporation, they chose to file a suit and the writ petition had been filed only after the interim injunction obtained by the petitioners in an earlier suit was vacated and in the second suit, no interim injunction was granted, the unit was auctioned and the intending purchaser deposited Rs. 10 lacs by selling his lands'. On the facts, the Patna High Court held that this was not a case where the sale of property was found to be vitiated by unjust and unreasonable acts on the part of the Corporation or its officers or its employees and the petitioners were not entitled to equitable relief, in view of their own conduct.