EMRI Green Health Services and Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. – Jharkhand High Court
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here […]
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here […]
Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court held that:
(i) The power which is to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a self-imposed restriction upon the High Court but that principle has been segregated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of recovery of public money from the borrowers who took loan/advance from the Bank and other financial institutions.
(ii) The issue of valuation of the mortgaged property is the question which cannot be adjudicated by the High Court in the summary proceeding like the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(iii) If alternative remedy is there and the process as per the stipulation provided in the relevant statutory provision is mandatorily to be followed otherwise there will be no meaning of statutory provision.
(iv) The same is based upon the principle that a thing is to be done strictly in accordance with the statutory provision and there cannot be any deviation from the statutory command. It is the settled position in law that a thing is required to be done strictly in pursuance to the provisions of law, if any deviation, then ultimately the provision as contained under the statute will have no effect.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Pande Ratneshwari Prasad Vs. The Union of India – Jharkhand High Court Read Post »
Hon’ble High Court observed that it is the specific case of the Bank that as yet the physical possession of the property is not with the Bank and at present the total bank dues outstanding in the said NPA account is amounting to Rs.10,68,964/-. This Court has posed a pin pointed question upon the Bank that when there is a law to be followed then why the Bank has not followed the Rule which mandates that in case if the amount has not been deposited and the purchaser has been found to be in default, the property shall be sold again as has been referred under sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of the Rules, 2002 coupled with the provision made under sub-rule (5) thereof. This Court, therefore, wants some answer from the higher authority at least of the rank of General Manager of the concerned Bank that what action is being taken against the erring officials after conducting an enquiry by casting liability so that said instance may not be repeated in future and the very object and aim of the Act, 2002 be achieved in strict sense.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
M/s Mahal Industries Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board – Jharkhand High Court Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Senbo Engineering Ltd. Vs. East Central Railway – Jharkhand High Court Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here