Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.52 seconds)
Malladi Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs Tuber Pharma Chemicals Ltd. And Another on 14 February, 1997 cites

Mahesh Chandra vs Regional Manager, U.P. Financial ... on 12 February, 1992

16. The Corporation filed a separate counter-affidavit contending that as the writ petitioner has become a chronic defaulter, the loans were foreclosed by a communication dated May 24, 1990, and as the dues were not liquidated, the possession of the unit was taken over on August 22, 1990, and the sale was held ultimately on August 14, 1991. The sale was held after due publicity in the press and the writ petitioner did not protest throughout and that the writ petition was filed only long after possession was handed over to the review petitioner. It is also contended that the writ petitioner filed the writ petition after the Corporation had filed S.F.C.O.P. No. 7 of 1992, before the District Judge, Vellore, for enforcing the guarantee. The sale in the instant case was held long before the publication of the judgment in Mahesh Chandra v. U.P. Financial Corporation . Therefore, the Corporation prayed that this court may pass appropriate orders.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 278 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

The Chairman And Managing ... vs Contromix Pvt.Ltd. By Its ... on 12 May, 1995

56. We are, therefore, of the view that applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Chairman and Managing Director, SIPCOT v. Contromix Pvt. Ltd. , and the two subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court, referred to supra, the writ petition in the instant case at the stage at which this court was approached is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 80 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

U.P. Financial Corporation vs Gem Cap (India) Pvt. Ltd. And Ors on 2 March, 1993

53. A reading of the judgment in Orissa State Financial Corporation v. Hotel Jogendra , would clearly indicate that a different approach had been made by the Supreme Court in consonence with the other cases cited supra and in U.P. Financial Corporation v. Gem Cap (India) Pvt. Ltd. [1993] 78 Comp Cas 408; AIR 1993 SC 1435, and Chairman and Managing Director, SIPCOT v. Contromix Pvt. Ltd. . The Supreme Court in paragraph 8 help as follows (page 724) :
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 204 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Orissa State Financial Corporation And ... vs Hotel Jogendra on 18 April, 1996

53. A reading of the judgment in Orissa State Financial Corporation v. Hotel Jogendra , would clearly indicate that a different approach had been made by the Supreme Court in consonence with the other cases cited supra and in U.P. Financial Corporation v. Gem Cap (India) Pvt. Ltd. [1993] 78 Comp Cas 408; AIR 1993 SC 1435, and Chairman and Managing Director, SIPCOT v. Contromix Pvt. Ltd. . The Supreme Court in paragraph 8 help as follows (page 724) :
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 20 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Karnataka State Financial Corporation vs Micro Cast Rubber & Allied Products (P) ... on 3 June, 1996

In the decision in Karnataka State Financial Corporation v. Micro Cast Rubber and Allied Products (P) Ltd. [1997] 88 Comp Cas 221 (SC); [1996] JT 6 SC 36, the Supreme Court held that the directions in Mahesh Chandra v. U.P. Financial Corporation [1993] 78 Comp Cas 1 are only in the nature of guidelines for the exercise of power under section 29 of the Act and the action of the State Financial Corporation is not liable to be interfered with if it has acted broadly in consonance with these guidelines and that the judicial review is confined only to two situations, viz., (1) there is statutory violation on the part of the financial corporation; and (2) where the financial corporation acts unfairly or unreasonably.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 42 - S C Agrawal - Full Document
1   2 3 Next