Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)
S.P. Gupta vs State And Ors. on 31 October, 2002 cites

A.P. State Financial Corpn vs Gar Re-Rolling Mills on 10 February, 1994

In Maharashtra State Financial Corporation v. Sanuarna Mills, the Apex Court held that before taking over possession of the property of the defaulter notice calling upon the defaulter to pay the dues would be sufficient compliance of the requirement of natural justice. The principles of natural justice vary from case to case depending on the facts and situation in each case. In the present case, it cannot be said that no notice was given to the borrowing company before taking action under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act. The petitioner is challenging the proceedings only against him and not the company. In this case the petitioner does not challenge the action of taking over possession under Section 29 of the Act, but only about the proceedings of recovery against him. Undoubtedly there was default and Section 29 of the Act was attracted. There is no lack of power or jurisdiction. When power under Section 29 of the Act was exercised, an amount of Rs. 33,38,784-61 as interest and principal amount of Rs. 1,57,22,862.79 was due. This amount was not disputed by the borrower. The action of the Finance Corporation cannot be termed arbitrary or unjustified. The Finance Corporation had to take an administrative decision about the price of the property and condition of sale.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 233 - K Singh - Full Document

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

In the case of U.P.F.C. v. Gem Cap Pvt. Ltd., the Apex Court said that the Court cannot sit over the act of the Corporation as an appellate court and seek to correct them. That is not the function of the High Court. Therefore, doctrine of fairness envisaged in administrative law is not supposed to convert the writ courts into an appellate authority or civil court. The constraints are self imposed on writ jurisdiction and they still remain.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 204 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1