Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-08-2014
Ashok Bhushan, J. These two writ petitions filed by the same petitioners have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in Writ Petition No.48250/2013, which is being treated as leading writ petition. Brief facts giving rise to both the writ petitions are: The petitioner no.1 is a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956, and has been carrying out its activities since 1995. The petitioners' company suffered heavy losses in the financial year 2008-09 and 2009-2010. A reference under Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the "Act, 1985") was made by the petitioners Company before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter called the "BIFR") in the Month of October, 2010. The reference was registered as BIFR Case No. 53/2010. The Board proceeded with the reference and called for certain informations and in its proceedings da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-17-2014
Suneet Kumar, J. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner company through its Director had obtained a term loan of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- payable in seven years and a cash credit limit facility to the tune of Rs.70,00,000/- from the respondent Bank in 2008. To secure the aforesaid loan/facility on behalf of the borrowers, the company created security interest in respect of the following properties: Primary Security: I) Cold Storage Land located at Gata No.329 and 330 Mauza Pihura, Sadabad, Dist. Mahamaya Nagar valued for Rs.16.60 lacs. II) Cold Storage Building and Hypothecation of Plant and Machinery valued at Rs.91.88 lacs. Collateral Security: I) Residential House at 9, Civil Lines, Mathura, U.P belonging to Shri Mahesh Chandra Gautam valued for Rs.73.00 lacs. II) Charge on Agricultural Land situated at Khasra No. 191 and 192, Village Maharara, Sadabad, Mahamaya Nagar valued for Rs.48.00 lacs. III) Charge on Agricultural Land situated at Khata ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jan-03-2014
Amar Saran, J. This appeal was called out in the revised list. Even though, there are a number of counsel, yet none of them has appeared. One counsel Sri Fanish Mishra has sent an illness slip. As there are a number of counsel, we propose to ignore the said illness slip. In Bani Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 4 SCC, 720, as reiterated in K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 3 SCC 721 it has been held that even in the absence of counsel, who are deliberately not appearing, it will be open to the Court to peruse the record and the judgement of the Trial Court and decide the appeal on merit after hearing the State counsel. The hearing of the appeal cannot be adjourned only for this reason. 2. We have heard learned A.G.A. Sri R. K. Singh and Sri Anand Tiwari and perused the papers of the case. The appellants Bishambar and Chandru have been convicted by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnore and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under sections 302/34 I.P.C. and three...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad Lucknow
Decided on : Dec-17-2014
By these proceedings, the petitioner seeks to question the legality of an order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (Securitisation Act). In the application which was filed before the District Magistrate, the second respondent pleaded that it had extended financial assistance in the amount of Rs.10 lacs to the borrowers who had executed a security agreement on 15 September 2005 against immovable property. The petitioner is a co-borrower. On a default committed by the borrowers, the second respondent stated that it had issued a demand notice on 24 June 2011 under Section 13(2) calling upon the borrowers to repay the entire dues in the amount of Rs.10,69,589/- within 60 days. According to the petitioner, on 1 September 2011, the second respondent affixed a possession notice on the property. The petitioner challenged the possession notice by filing a securitisation app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Feb-13-2014
Ashok Bhushan, J. 1. This Full Bench has been constituted to answer the following two questions referred by the Division Bench hearing this writ petition. "1. Whether the application of the petitioner dated 25.7.2005 submitted for grant of freehold right on the basis of the Government Order dated 1.12.1998 (Paragraph 7) and the Government Order dated 10.12.2002 (paragraph 5) was entitled to be considered in accordance with the Government policy as was in existence on the date of application or the Government policy as amended by Government Order dated 4.8.2006, was to be taken into consideration while deciding the application on 18.12.2006? 2. Whether the Division Bench judgment in Dr. O.P. Gupta Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (4) AWC 4038 lays down the correct law?" Brief facts giving rise to the writ petition and the reference to this Full Bench need to be noted. The State Government formulated a policy to grant a free hold right on Nazul Land by Government Order dated 23/5/1992. The above p...
Tag this Judgment!