Shree Madha Vs. Olvextracts Private

Shree Madha vs Olvextracts Private

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jun 28, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1061678

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1061678
Court: Kolkata High Court
Judge: Sanjib Banerjee
Decided On: Jun 28, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shree Madha

Respondent

Olvextracts Private

Excerpt

.....mr.n.mishra, adv...for the petitioner. mr.m.rahaman, adv.md.nasirudding, adv...for the respondents. before: the hon'ble justice sanjib banerjee date : june 28, 2013. the court : the grievance of the petitioner is that despite the petitioner offering to repay the entire amount claimed by the bank in securitisation and enforcement of its notice under reconstruction security interest of section the act, 13(2) financial 2002, the of the assets and bank has arbitrarily rejected the proposal in its recent letter of may 28, 2013. it appears from the concluding lines of the bank’s letter that the bank perceives the credit facilities accorded to the petitioner to not be separate and distinct from the credit facilities granted to the group of concerns to which the petitioner company belongs. the bank rejected the proposal of the petitioner company to make payment of the amount due in respect of the petitioner company’s accounts without seeking to repay the amounts due from the other group concerns. the petitioners say that it has come to the petitioners’ notice that advertisements have been published under rule 8(1) of rules framed under the said act of 2002 in today’s newspapers.since an efficacious, alternative remedy is available to the petitioner company upon the bank invoking section 13(4) of the said act of 2002, w.p.no.597 of 2013 is not entertained and the petitioner company is left free to pursue its remedies before the appropriate tribunal in accordance with law. it is made clear that the merits of the matter have not been gone into and the petitioner company will be entitled to urge all grounds available to it. there will be no order as to costs. urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties subject to compliance with requisite formalities. (sanjib banerjee, j.) a/s. all

Full Judgment

WP No.597 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SHREE MADHAVSOLVEXTRACTS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

-Versus RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.Appearance: Mr.N.Mishra, Adv...for the petitioner.

Mr.M.Rahaman, Adv.Md.Nasirudding, Adv...for the respondents.

BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : June 28, 2013.

The Court : The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the petitioner offering to repay the entire amount claimed by the bank in Securitisation and Enforcement of its notice under Reconstruction Security Interest of Section the Act, 13(2) Financial 2002, the of the Assets and bank has arbitrarily rejected the proposal in its recent letter of May 28, 2013.

It appears from the concluding lines of the bank’s letter that the bank perceives the credit facilities accorded to the petitioner to not be separate and distinct from the credit facilities granted to the group of concerns to which the petitioner company belongs.

The bank rejected the proposal of the petitioner company to make payment of the amount due in respect of the petitioner company’s accounts without seeking to repay the amounts due from the other group concerns.

The petitioners say that it has come to the petitioners’ notice that advertisements have been published under Rule 8(1) of Rules framed under the said Act of 2002 in today’s newspapeRs.Since an efficacious, alternative remedy is available to the petitioner company upon the bank invoking Section 13(4) of the said Act of 2002, W.P.No.597 of 2013 is not entertained and the petitioner company is left free to pursue its remedies before the appropriate tribunal in accordance with law.

It is made clear that the merits of the matter have not been gone into and the petitioner company will be entitled to urge all grounds available to it.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties subject to compliance with requisite formalities.

(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) A/s.

all

Same Court & Year Kolkata · 2013 Same Parties Shree Madha vs Olvextracts Private Same Subject Education Same Judge Sanjib Banerjee