Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.22 seconds)United Bank Of India vs Satyawati Tondon & Ors on 26 July, 2010
It is also settled position of law that the discretion exercised by Learned
Trial Judge is not interfered with by the Appeal Court lightly. We have noted that
Learned Trial Judge refused to entertain the writ petition on the ground of
alternative remedy relying on two Supreme Court decisions one of them (United Bank
of India V. Satyawati Tondon & Ors.) reported in (2010) 8 SCC and another
(Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev V. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) reported in (2011) 2
SCC 782. One of the decisions has been placed before us by Mr. Deb appearing for the
2
bank to control that Learned Trial Judge has rightly refused to entertain the writ
petition as Supreme Court has supported this kind of action. We have seen the
judgment of the Supreme Court and we find to our reading nowhere Supreme Court
has said under no circumstances the action under Section 13 of the said Act should be
examined by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It is settled position of law
that the power of Writ Court under Sections 226 and 227 is a basic structure and
inviolable part of the Constitution. Hence in a fit case the writ petition can certainly
be entertained.
Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 7 February, 2011
It is also settled position of law that the discretion exercised by Learned
Trial Judge is not interfered with by the Appeal Court lightly. We have noted that
Learned Trial Judge refused to entertain the writ petition on the ground of
alternative remedy relying on two Supreme Court decisions one of them (United Bank
of India V. Satyawati Tondon & Ors.) reported in (2010) 8 SCC and another
(Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev V. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) reported in (2011) 2
SCC 782. One of the decisions has been placed before us by Mr. Deb appearing for the
2
bank to control that Learned Trial Judge has rightly refused to entertain the writ
petition as Supreme Court has supported this kind of action. We have seen the
judgment of the Supreme Court and we find to our reading nowhere Supreme Court
has said under no circumstances the action under Section 13 of the said Act should be
examined by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It is settled position of law
that the power of Writ Court under Sections 226 and 227 is a basic structure and
inviolable part of the Constitution. Hence in a fit case the writ petition can certainly
be entertained.
Section 17 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
1