Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.37 seconds)Section 14 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Section 31 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Itc Limited vs Blue Coast Hotels Ltd. . on 19 March, 2018
16. Though several judgements are referred to by all
the parties, in view of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in ITC Ltd. Vs. Blue Coast Hotels Ltd & Ors., reported in
(2018) 15 SCC 99, there is no necessity to refer to other
judgements. In Blue Coast Hotels Ltd., Hon'ble Supreme
Court, in para 36 of its judgement, held as follows
"36. The purpose of enacting Section 31(i) and the
meaning of the term "agricultural land" assume significance. This
provision, like many others is intended to protect agricultural
land held for agricultural purposes by agriculturists from the
extraordinary provisions of this Act, which provides for
enforcement of security interest without intervention of the
Court. The plain intention if the provision is to exempt
agricultural land from the provisions of the Act. In other words,
the creditor cannot enforce any security interest created in his
favour without intervention of the Court or Tribunal, such
security interest is in respect of agricultural land. The exemption
thus protects agriculturists from losing their source of livelihood
and income i.e. the agricultural land, under the drastic provision
of the Act. It is also intended to deter the creation of security
interest over agricultural land as defined in Section 2 (2) 36.
Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, Andhra ... vs Officer-In-Charge (Court Of Wards) ... on 6 August, 1976
10. On a close reading of the orders of DRT and DRAT, it appears
to us that DRT except to refer/ mention the evidence let in by both sides,
has neither examined the probative value of evidence let in nor
6 Indian Bank and another vs. K.Pappireddiyar and another, (2018) 18 SCC 252
7 Cited supra
Page 37 of 47
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 07:18:52 pm )
W.P.No.30999 of 2023
discharged its obligation to analyse or sift or assess the evidence on
record with reference to trustworthiness and truthfulness by a process of
dispassionate judicial scrutiny adopting an objective approach. Courts
have a duty while scrutinising evidence to separate grain from chaff8. It
may also be relevant to note that evidence ought to be weighed and not
counted9. The test which ought to be applied by court is that evidence
has a ring of truth, it is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise.
Indian Bank vs K. Pappireddiyar on 20 July, 2018
10. On a close reading of the orders of DRT and DRAT, it appears
to us that DRT except to refer/ mention the evidence let in by both sides,
has neither examined the probative value of evidence let in nor
6 Indian Bank and another vs. K.Pappireddiyar and another, (2018) 18 SCC 252
7 Cited supra
Page 37 of 47
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 07:18:52 pm )
W.P.No.30999 of 2023
discharged its obligation to analyse or sift or assess the evidence on
record with reference to trustworthiness and truthfulness by a process of
dispassionate judicial scrutiny adopting an objective approach. Courts
have a duty while scrutinising evidence to separate grain from chaff8. It
may also be relevant to note that evidence ought to be weighed and not
counted9. The test which ought to be applied by court is that evidence
has a ring of truth, it is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise.
Sardul Singh vs State Of Haryana on 27 September, 2002
a) While the first report dated 09.04.2011 would describe the
subject property as vacant land, subsequent reports would state that
there was a building/shed/garment factory building in the subject
property. There was nothing on record to indicate the need for obtaining
4 valuation reports in addition to the report dated 09.04.2011. DRAT
ought to have enquired into the need for obtaining these additional
8 Sardul Singh v. State of Haryana, (2002) 8 SCC 372
9 Muluwa v. State of M.P., (1976) 1 SCC 37
10 Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2011) 10 SCC 158
Page 38 of 47
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 07:18:52 pm )
W.P.No.30999 of 2023
reports which it failed.
Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 21 October, 2011
a) While the first report dated 09.04.2011 would describe the
subject property as vacant land, subsequent reports would state that
there was a building/shed/garment factory building in the subject
property. There was nothing on record to indicate the need for obtaining
4 valuation reports in addition to the report dated 09.04.2011. DRAT
ought to have enquired into the need for obtaining these additional
8 Sardul Singh v. State of Haryana, (2002) 8 SCC 372
9 Muluwa v. State of M.P., (1976) 1 SCC 37
10 Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2011) 10 SCC 158
Page 38 of 47
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/06/2025 07:18:52 pm )
W.P.No.30999 of 2023
reports which it failed.