Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (0.34 seconds)
R.Jagadeesan vs Managing Director on 12 July, 2022 cites

Authorized Officer, State Bank Of ... vs Mathew K.C. on 30 January, 2018

4. Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Ors. vs. Mathew K.C. (30.01.2018-SC): MANU/SC/0054/2018 The petitioner argued that the SARFAESI Act is a complete code by itself, providing for expeditious recovery of dues arising out of loans 24/44 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.27400 of 2015 granted by financial institutions, the remedy of appeal by the aggrieved under Section 17 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, followed by a right to appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 18. The High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition in view of the adequate alternate statutory remedies available to the Respondent. The interim order was passed on the very first date, without an opportunity to the Appellant to file a reply.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 1748 - N Sinha - Full Document

United Bank Of India vs Satyawati Tondon & Ors on 26 July, 2010

Reliance was placed on United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon and others, MANU/SC/0541/2010 : 2010 (8) SCC 110 and General Manager, Sri Siddeshwara Cooperative Bank Limited and another vs. Ikbal and others, MANU/SC/0856/2013 : 2013 (10) SCC 83. The writ petition ought to have been dismissed at the threshold on the ground of maintainability. The Division Bench erred in declining to interfere with the same. The Supreme Court agreed to the arguments and held the same also noted that the writ petition ought not to have been entertained and the interim order granted for the mere asking without assigning special 25/44 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.27400 of 2015 reasons and that too without even granting opportunity to the Appellant to contest the maintainability of the writ petition and failure to notice the subsequent developments in the interregnum.
Supreme Court of India Cites 49 - Cited by 3973 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next