Legal Reference Library

Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation Vs. Anil Garg The Respondent applied for a loan of Rs.1.90 lakhs in 1989 to purchase a Swaraz Mazda truck and executed a hypothecation deed. Repayment schedule commenced from 10.1.1990 culminating on 10.7.1994. Rs.10,000/- only was repaid on 6.3.1991. The vehicle was seized on 6.5.1991 under Section 29 of the State Finance Corporation Act, 1951 and auction sold on 4.9.1991 for a sum of Rs.1.46 lakhs. A Money Suit was filed before the Senior Sub Judge, Shimla for recovery of the balance of Rs.1,25,270/- along with future interest and costs. The Suit was withdrawn on 12.12.1995 under Order 23, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that the Appellant desired to proceed under the Himachal Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1973. The Suit was dismissed as withdrawn. Recovery Certificate was then issued under the Act on 19.4.1996 for a sum of Rs.1,94,283/- followed by a warrant of arrest. 7. The Respondent thwarted the Certifi...

In Metsil Exports Private Ltd. & anr. v. Punjab National Bank & anr., the question before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court was what is the legal position regarding publication of a demand notice under section 13(2) of the Act in two newspapers having wide circulation with the photograph of a director/guarantor? Held, If a demand notice under section 13(2) of the Act is served on the borrower/guarantor in the manner statutorily provided for and there is no reason at all to believe that service has not been effected, question of publication thereof in the newspapers does not and cannot arise. It is only when an opinion could reasonably be formed that the borrower is evading service of the demand notice and that alternative modes of service have been exhausted without seemingly positive result in view thereby making it imperative to proceed for the last option i.e. publication in newspapers, that recourse thereto could be taken. The requirement of formation of opin...

CIT vs. Ramaniyam Homes P Ltd (Madras High Court) COURT: Madras High Court CORAM: T. Mathivanan J, V. Ramasubramanian J SECTION(S): 28(iv) GENRE: Domestic Tax CATCH WORDS: business income, capital vs. revenue receipt, OTSS, waiver of loan COUNSEL: Dr. Anitha Sumanth DATE: April 22, 2016 (Date of pronouncement) DATE: April 28, 2016 (Date of publication) AY: 2006-07 S. 28(iv): The waiver by the lender of even the principal amount of loan constitutes a "benefit" arising from business and is assessable to tax as income. Logitronics 333 ITR 386 (Del), Rollatainers 339 ITR 54 (Del), Mahindra & Mahindra 261 ITR 501 (Bom) and Iskraemeco Regent 196 TM 103 (Mad) not followed The High Court had to consider whether the amount representing the principal loan amount waived by the bank under the one time settlement scheme which the assessee received during the course of its business is exigible to tax. The department contended that the waiver of principal amount ...

A single Judge of the Kerala High Court in Lonankutty Antony@ T.V.Antony v The Joint Registrar of Co operative Societies and others [W.P(C )No:2527/2015] has ruled that a banker cannot exercise a general lien over the property owned by the husband, for the liability incurred by the wife, in the absence of any express or implied consent thereto. The petitioner husband had availed himself of a loan from the respondent bank after mortgaging a piece of property and later cleared it. When he sought the return of the title deeds of the property after clearing the loan, the bank refused to return the same. The refusal seemed to be on the premise that the petitioner’s wife also had secured a loan, and the petitioner’s title deeds are deemed to have been kept as security for the realization of the said debt, too. In other words, the bank had exercised its general lien over the property owned by the husband, for the liability incurred by the wife. Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu in his imitable styl...

The High Court of Kerala has ruled that resorting to strong arm tactics to recover loans by Banks and other Financial Institutions is unlawful The court was considering an appeal filed by a recovery agency against a nationalized bank [Smart security secret service agency v State Bank of India (R.S.A No:46/2011)]seeking payment of commission duty for its assistance, towards a loan recovery. It was averred that the bank refused pay the charges, after a borrower had voluntarily settled the matter. The appellant relied on the agreement clause with the bank which mandated commission duty on every recovery duty assigned to it. The lower court allowed the plea of the appellant, which was reversed the appellate court. Hence he approached the High Court. Justice P.B Suresh Kumar who considered the appeal, observed that nature of agreement entered between the agency and bank would show that the intention of the bank was not mere authorization with the agency towards collection of loan amounts in...

Justice Vaidhyanathan on pointing out that the Supreme Court had held in a plethora of decisions that a financier had a right to resume possession of the goods even if the hire purchase agreement did not contain a specific clause for resumption of possession, directed the police to quash the FIR filed against the bank. As per the case, T Karuppiah of Madurai had obtained a loan of Rs 9 lakh from the HDFC bank in Madurai to buy a car. But, since he had failed to repay the loan, the bank after issuing notice to him, took the car into its custody. Acting on a complaint from Karuppiah that the bank officials had robbed his car, the Kadupatti police booked the bank under section 379 IPC and also asked the bank to surrender the vehicle as it was required for investigation as well as production before the court. This prompted the bank to approach the court seeking to quash the FIR.

A two judge bench of the Supreme Court of India in Chief Controlling Revenue Authority v. Coastal Gujarat Power Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 6054 of 2015 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 32319 of 2013) has set aside an order passed by the High Court of Gujarat on 3 December 2012 in Stamp Reference No. 1/2011, holding that a mortgage deed with security trustee to secure loans of multiple banks would be treated as distinct transactions and would be liable for stamp duty as if separate mortgage deeds were recorded for each bank (Supreme Court Judgment). The High Court had observed that the stamp duty is payable on the instrument and not the transaction. As per the High Court the instrument was a mortgage deed between a borrower (mortgagor) and a security trustee (mortgagee). It was the security trustee alone who had the power to enforce the mortgage and not the banks. The High Court observed that Section 5 cannot be construed to empower the State to levy duty on the transaction as opposed to the...

   The Bank of Bihar Ltd. v. Dr. Damodar Prasad & Anr., AIR 1969  297 Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Bombay v. The Official Liquidator, High Court, Ernakulam & Anr., AIR 1982 SC 1497 Union Bank of India v. Manku Narayana, AIR 1987 SC 1078 State Bank of India v. Messrs. Indexport Registered & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 1740 State Bank of India v. M/s. Saksaria Sugar Mills Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1986 SC 868 Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd. v. Biswasnath Jhunjhunwala, (2009) 9 SCC 478 United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3413) Lachhman Dass v. Jagat Ram & Ors., (2007) 10 SCC 448; Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., AIR 2011 SC 1589 ( IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6204 OF 2009 Ram Kishun & Ors. ...Appellants Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents J U D G M E N T We have considered the rival submissions made by learne...

  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)      ...

Case reference: By Bank - 1) Calcutta High Court Writ Petition No. 10315 of 2013 - Ujjal Kumar Das & Anr. vs. State Bank of India & Ors. 2) Calcutta HC - Writ Petition No. 9850 of 2013 Messrs. Allianz Convergence Private Limited & Ors. vs. The General Manager, State Bank of India & Anr. 3) 3)  Kerala High Court in Writ Petition No. 10864 of 2013 4) Kerala Writ Petition No. 20686 of 2013 5) Ku. Archana Chauhan v. State Bank of India, Jabalpur and [2007 136 Comp. Cas 568 (Mad) 6) Mr. K.J. Doraisamy v. the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Erode Branch  2006(4) MLJ 1877 = [2007] 136 By borrower - Supreme Court in the case of V. T. Khanzode & Ors. vs. Reserve Bank of India & Anr. (1982) 2 Supreme Court Cases 7. Defined: 1) doctrine of ultra vires in relation to the powers of a statutory corporation IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2808 OF 2013 D. J. ...

Case reference:  By Bank -  1) Madhya Pradesh and Madras High Courts, reported in AIR 2007 Madhya Pradesh 45  2) Ku. Archana Chauhan v. State Bank of India, Jabalpur and [2007 136 Comp. Cas 568 (Mad) 3) Mr. K.J. Doraisamy v. the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Erode Branch 4)  (2004) 3 SCC 349 : Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal 5)    AIR 2007 SC 712 : Transcore v. Union of India 6)  AIR 1987 Calcutta 29 : Shankarlal Agarwalla v. State Bank of India - Public vs private duty 7)  AIR 1992 Kerala 351 : Kattabomman Transport Corporation Ltd. v. State Bank of Travancore    - Public vs private duty Defined:  1)  Section 15 of the Contract Act, 1872 defining coercion 2) Public Good/Public Interest by Supreme court Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side) Ujjal Kumar Das & Anr vs State Bank Of India & Ors on 3 May, 2013 Author: Dipankar Datta IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTT...