Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.19 seconds)
Ratul Puri vs Bank Of Baroda on 26 May, 2025 cites

Ratul Puri vs Bank Of Baroda & Anr on 8 September, 2022

33. The allegation under Ground 7(e), as disclosed in the counter affidavit, again pertains to transactions between MBIL and its 100% subsidiary, MBSL. It remains uncontroverted from the pleadings and the documents placed on record by the applicant/petitioner that it was never the respondent Bank's case that the lease agreements in question were not acted upon. The mere expiry of lease agreements between a parent company and its subsidiary cannot, by itself, constitute sufficient evidence to assume or assert that the transaction was fraudulent. A perusal of the relevant documents, including the balance sheets for the corresponding financial years, reveals that lease transactions continued to be booked, thereby establishing that the transactions were genuine and remained operative. Significantly, this allegation did not even find mention in the SCN issued to the applicant/petitioner.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - S Narula - Full Document

State Bank Of India vs Rajesh Agarwal on 27 March, 2023

It is pointed out that the said writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated 01.03.2024, quashing the classification for being in derogation of the RBI Master Circular and contrary to the judgment in State Bank of India v. Rajesh Aggarwal9. Similarly, the petitioner succeeded in W.P.(C) 9491/2023 against Punjab National Bank, wherein similar action was set aside vide judgment dated 29.02.2024. FINDINGS OF THIS COURT ON MERITS
Supreme Court of India Cites 52 - Cited by 178 - Full Document

Radha Raman Samanta vs Bank Of India And Ors on 19 December, 2003

In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner relied 10 (2019) 6 SCC 787 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 2765/2023 Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 10 of 28 KUMAR VATS Signing Date:26.05.2025 20:15:05 on decision in Radha Raman Samanta v. Bank of India 11, wherein it was held that it is not improper for the High Court to examine undisputed documents and draw an inference as to the status of the parties concerned. The argument appears to be that, inasmuch as a finding has already been rendered by the Coordinate Benches that the grounds relied upon by the respondent Bank for declaring of the petitioner's account as a 'wilful defaulter' were without merit, the same grounds, by no stretch of imagination or legal latitude, could be found sustainable for declaration of the account of the petitioner as 'fraud'.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 22 - Full Document
1