Skip to main content

Defaulters photo can be published

  SLP(C) NO. 37726 of 2013


  ITEM NO.58                              COURT NO.10                 SECTION IX

                               S U P R E M E C O U R T O F     I N D I A
                                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

  Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 37726/2013

  (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28/11/2013
  in WPL No. 2808/2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
  Bombay)

  D.J.EXIM(INDIA) PVT.LTD AND ORS                                     Petitioner(s)

                                                 VERSUS

  SBI,MUMBAI & ORS                                   Respondent(s)
  [With prayer for interim relief and office report)
  WITH
  T.P.(C) No. 691/2014
  [ALLAHABAD BANK V. M/S REVATI CEMENTS PVT. LTD.]
  (With Office Report)

  Date : 14/07/2014 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

  CORAM :
                             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
                             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH

  For Petitioner(s)                 Mr. Sowridev, Adv.
  In SLP 37726                      Mr. Munawwar Naseem, Adv.

  in TP 691                         Mr.   C. Mukund, Adv.
                                    Mr.   Ashok Jain, Adv.
                                    Mr.   Pankaj Jain, Adv.
                                    Mr.   Bijoy Kumar Jain ,Adv.

  For Respondent(s)                 Mr.   Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv.
                                    Mr.   Sanjay Kapur, Adv.
                                    Mr.   Anmol Chandan, Adv.
                                    Ms.   Priyanka Das, Adv.
                                    Ms.   Lekha Vishwanath, Adv.

                         UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                            O R D E R
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
Kalyani Gupta
                         SLP(C) NO. 37726 of 2013
Date: 2014.07.19
16:39:53 IST
Reason:

                              We find no merit in this Special Leave Petition


  PAGE NO. 1 OF 2
SLP(C) NO. 37726 of 2013




                    and the same is dismissed.       However, we leave it

                    open to the petitioners to work out their remedy in

                    accordance with law.

                    TP(C) No. 691 of 2014

                           Issue notice returnable in four weeks.

                           Dasti service, in addition, is permitted.




                    [KALYANI GUPTA]                       [SHARDA KAPOOR]
                      COURT MASTER                          COURT MASTER







PAGE NO. 2 OF 2
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of ...
24 comments
Read more

SARFAESI-Right of tenant/lessee - Supreme Court

Cited: 1)  M/s Trade Well, a Proprietorship Firm, Mumbai & Anr. v. Indian Bank & Anr. [2007 CRI. L.J. 2544]   2)  C.B. Gautam v. Union of India & Ors. [(1993) 1 SCC 78] 3)  ICICI Bank Ltd. v. SIDCO Leathers Ltd. & Ors. [(2006) 10 SCC 452] 4) D elhi High Court in Shri Sanjeev Bansal v. Oman International Bank SAOG & Anr. 131 (2006) DLT 729  5) Madras High Court in Sree Lakshmi Products v. State Bank of India (AIR 2007 Madras 148) 6)  Sunita Jugalkishore Gilda v. Ramalal Udhoji Tanna (dead) through LRs. & Ors. [(2013) 10 SCC 258], Supreme Court 7)  Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala and Others [(2009) 4 SCC 94], Supreme Court  8) Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank and Another v. Ashok Saw Mill [(2009) 8 SCC 366] , Supreme Court 9) United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Others [(2010) 8 SCC 110] , Supreme Court   10)  Oriental Bank of Commerce in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) ...
Post a Comment
Read more

An order of attachment before judgment ends if a suit is dismissed

An order of attachment before judgment passed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code will not survive the dismissal of a suit and it ends when the suit is dismissed after trial. Contents 1 (i) Whether an order of attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”, for short) made in a suit for recovery of money will survive the dismissal of the suit on merits? 2 (ii) If the appellate court reverses the decree of the trial court and allows the suit claim, will it result in an automatic revival of the order of attachment before judgment? 3 (iii) Whether the ratio in the decision by Full Bench in Thampi Muhammad Abdul Kadir v. Padmanabha Pillai Parameswaran Pillai (1952 KLT 264) holds good in view of the change in the precedential law and insertion of Order XXXVIII Rule 11A to the Code? 3.1 “11A. Provisions applicable to attachment.- 3.2 “57. Determination of attachment.- 3.3 Arumuhom Ammal v. Nayanar Panicker (1962 KLT 264) 3.4...
1 comment
Read more