Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS._614-615 OF2016(ARISING OUT OF SLP(CIVIL) NOS. 26170-26171 OF2008 M/S MADRAS PETROCHEM LTD. & ANR. APPELLANTS VERSUS BIFR & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present appeals raise interesting questions on the interplay between the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The facts in appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.26170-26171 of 2008 are as follows.3. The net worth of the Appellant No.1 Company, having eroded completely, the appellant No.1 company filed a reference under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 before the BIFR, which was registered as BIFR Case No.115 of 1989. On 13.12.1989, after making an inquiry under Section 16(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Prov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the action of respondent No.3, the Recovery Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, in the matter of recovery proceedings regarding the decree obtained by the respondent-Bank, and is filed mainly claiming the following reliefs : 7.1. That this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and may further be pleased to quash the orders dated 23.11.2005 and 06.11.2000 (Annexure P-7 and P-8) in the interest of justice. 7.2. That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to hold that the Recovery Officer has acted beyond jurisdiction, authority and power in the matter and the entire action on part of respondents is bad in the eyes of law. 7.3. Any other writ/writs relief/reliefs, order/orders and direction/directions which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case be passed by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1581 OF2021Kailash Vijayvargiya Appellant Versus Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri and others Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1582 OF2021CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1583 OF2021JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 01.10.2021 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in Criminal Revision Application No.92/2021, by which the High Court has allowed the said revision application preferred by respondent no.1 herein original complainant (victim) and Crl.A. No.1581/2021 Etc. Page 1 of 63 has quashed and set aside order dated 12.11.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore (for short, learned CJM) rejecting the petition filed by respondent no.1 herein original complainant under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (Code/Cr.PC) original respondent nos. 2 to 4 (alleged accused) have preferred the present appeals.2. The facts ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated :22-04-2013 Coram : THE HONOURABLE SELVI JUSTICE K.SUGUNA THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY Writ Petition No.26905 of 2011 M/s.Salem Textiles Limited, Having its Registered Office at Selliampalayam, Attu108. Salem District Represented by its Managing Director. .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Authorized Officer, M/s.Phoenix ARC Private Ltd., Acting as Trustee on behalf of Phoenix Trust FY 09-7, 7th Floor, Dani Corporate Park, 158 CST Road, Kalina Santacruz (E), Mumba098. 2.Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd., Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, IDBI Towers, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai. 3.Salem Textiles, National Textile Workers Union, Registration No.253/SLM, Affiliated to INTUC, Selliampalayam, Narasinghapuram (PO), Salem District. 4.Salem Mavatta Dravida Panchalai Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam, Affiliated to LPF, Registration No.370/Salem, Selliampalayam, Narasinghapuram (PO), Sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : AIR2008Chh54
ORDERDhirendra Mishra, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief(s):A. A writ and /or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue commanding and directing the respondent Bank authorities to produce before this Hon'ble Court all the relevant records for perusal of this Hon'ble Court.B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue commanding and directing the respondent Bank authorities to act in consonance with the law laid down in Para 45 of the Mardia Chemicals Ltd.'s case, (AIR 2004 SC 2371) and strictly in accordance with Section 13 (2) & (4) of the Act and the Rules 3-A & 4 of the Rules, 2002, as amended up-to-date, and prohibiting the respondent Bank authorities from taking possession of the said shops and movables since pre-conditions for exercise of those powers have not been followed by the authorities.C. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of certiorari do issue quas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a debtor of the Union Bank of India, calls in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 17th July 2012 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, in Miscellaneous Application No.73 of 2012 being Exhibit 1 in exercise of powers under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 by which the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad directed the local police to assist the secured creditor, namely, the Union Bank of India to take over the possession of the secured assets mortgaged by the petitioner at the time of availing of the loan facility. 2. The petitioner also calls in question the legality, validity and propriety of the office order bearing no.A(VI) 40/2012 issued by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad dated 4th February...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE26H DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH R.S.A. NO.2243/2023 (INJ) BETWEEN:1. . M/S. SHREE GARODI STEELS DOOR NO.3-131/2 OPP. GARODI TEMPLE, NAGORI, KANAKANADY MAGNALURU-575002 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. MANOJ KUMAR (MAJOR) S/O S. AITHAPPA POOJARY MANGALURU-575002. APPELLANT (BY SRI K.V.SHYAMAPRASADA, ADVOCATE) AND:1. . M/S. YOJAKA INDIA PRIVATE LTD., DOOR NO.3-28/43, II FLOOR, ABCO, TRADE CENTER, NH66, KOTTARA HCOWKI, MANGALURU-575006 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SHRI. JAGDISH BOLOOR S/O LATE GOPALAKRISHNA SUVARNA AGED ABOUT60YEARS R/AT SIDDHI FLAT NO.1006, 10TH FLOOR, ABHIMAN PALACE OPP. CANARA HIGH SCHOOL MANNUGUDDA, MANGALURU-575003. RESPONDENT (BY SRI NAVEEN KUMAR M.G., ADVOCATE C/R) 2 THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION100OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED3010.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.9/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANGALURU D.K, ALLOWING THE APP...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE18H DAY OF SEPTEMBER2015PRESENT THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR W.P.No.39316/2015 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN : K.L.Kumaraswamy S/o K.C.Lakshminarayana Setty, Aged about 62 years, R/at No.17, 1st Floor, 29th Division, Vardamanaiah Block, 5th Cross, Shankarapuram, Bangalore ...PETITIONER (By Sri N.P.Kallesh Gowda, Adv.) AND :1. Dhanalaxmi Bank Ltd., Zonal Office, 3rd Floor, No.52, 33rd Cross, 4th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 011, Rep. by its Authorized Officer Sri S.Chandrashekar Father name not known, Hindu Major, Proprietor, 2.-. 2 - M/s Universal Trading Company, No.14, Church Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560 004 Sri B.V.Basavaraju S/o Vishwanathappa, Aged about 74 years, R/at No.F-004, Adarsha Palace, 47th Cross, Jayanagar 5th Block, Bangalore-560 041 RESPONDENTS . . . . This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 3. 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2004]53SCL275(All)
ORDER1. These are two writ petitions namely, Writ Petition No. 119 (M/B) of 2004 and Writ Petition No. 120 (M/B) of 2004, since the question of fact and law is the same, we decide the matter by passing a common order.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. Learned counsel for the respondents Shri Sharad Bhatnagar appearing for the bank raises a preliminary objection, against the maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that under the provision of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Act No. 54 of 2002) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the petitioner is not entitled to challenge any action initiated under Section 13 unless measures have been taken under Section 13(4) of the Act. The submission is that the appeal under Section 17 would lie only against the measures taken under Section 13(4) of the Act and not otherwise. As a consequence of the scheme of the Act, it is being urged that the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR2007Mad323; [2008]142CompCas793(Mad)
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This Company Application has been filed by the Applicant/Petitioner to stay the public auction to be held by the respondent/Corporation Bank on 9.2.2007.2. Company Application No. 188/2007 has been filed by the petitioner-company in C.P.No. 190/2006 to stay the public auction to be held by the Corporation Bank, who was impleaded as the respondent as per order dated 8.2.2007 in C.A.No. 214/2007.3. The brief facts are as under:The applicant-company filed C.P.No. 190/2006 seeking the voluntary winding up under Sections 433(a) and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent-bank who is the secured creditor of the applicant-company initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, hereinafter called the 'SARPAESI Act', and the respondent took possession of the immovable properties of the Company which consists of the land and factory including the plant and machinery vide possessi...
Tag this Judgment!