Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)
M/S.Aachi Masala Foods Pvt. Ltd vs M/S.Edelwiss Assets Reconstruction ... on 9 September, 2020
cites
Section 31B in The Recovery Of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993 [Entire Act]
Section 26E in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Section 41 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
The Customs Act, 1962
Section 529A in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Recovery Of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993
Assistant Commissioner (Ct) Anna Salai ... vs Indian Overseas Bank on 16 March, 2018
8. It was duly followed by another Full Bench of this Court reported in
Manu/TN/3743/2016 [The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Annasalai-III
Assessment Circle v. The Indian Overseas Bank W.P.No.2675 of 2029 etc.,
batch dated 10.11.2016]. Reliance has been made on the following para:
Central Bank Of India vs The Sub Registrar on 2 August, 2017
Indisputably, the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India
(supra) was prior to the amendment in the Act,
2002 and 1993 respectively. However, what is
important are the observations of the Supreme
Court as contained in para-126 of this decision
quoted above. The Supreme Court observed
that while enacting the DRT Act, the Parliament
was aware of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court, wherein priority of the State dues was
recognized. If the Parliament intended to create
the first charge in favour of the Banks, Financial
Institutions or other secured creditors on the
property of the borrower, then it would have
incorporated a provision like Section 529-A of
the Companies Act or Section 11(2) of the EPF
Act and ensured that notwithstanding the series
12/17
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.Nos.8546 to 8549 of 2020
of judicial pronouncements, the dues of Banks,
Financial Institutions and other secured
creditors should have priority over the State's
statutory first charge in the matter of recovery
of the dues of sales tax etc. The Supreme Court
proceeded to observe that the fact of the
C/SCA/13863/2014 JUDGMENT matter was that
no such provision had been incorporated in
either of those enactments despite conferment
of extraordinary power upon the secured
creditors to take possession and dispose of the
secured assets without the intervention of the
Court or Tribunal.
Thrissur Urban Co-Operative Bank vs The Keral Co-Operative Tribunal on 29 July, 2009
In the judgement relied on by the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner reported in Manu/KE/3448/2019 [State Bank of India v. State of
Keral dated 30.07.2019], the scope and ambit of Section 26(E) of The
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Securities Interest Act, 2002 and Section 31-B of The Recovery of Debts Due
to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 were considered in extenso.
1