REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Kartik Food Appellant

V/S

STATE OF H.P. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

MARDIA CHEMICALS LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
THANSINGH NATHMAL ONKARMAL JAWALAPRASAD INDRACHAND PREMSUCH RAMDEO SATYANARAYAN INDRACHAND PREMSUCH SHEWPRATAP TANTIA VS. SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES DHUBRIIN ALL APPEALS :SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES DHUBRIIN ALL APPEALS :SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES DHUBRIIN ALL APPEALS :SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES DHUBRIIN [REFERRED TO]
BABURAM PRAKASH CHANDRA MAHESHWARI VS. ANTARIM ZILA PARISHAD NOW ZILA PARISHAD MUZAFFAMAGAR [REFERRED TO]
PRAGA TOOLS CORPORATION VS. C A IMANUAL [REFERRED TO]
TITAGHUR PAPER MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION VS. REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS MUMBAI [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. O C KRISHNAN [REFERRED TO]
HARBANSLAL SAHNIA VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
FEDERAL BANK LIMITED VS. SAGAR THOMAS [REFERRED TO]
MARDIA CHEMICALS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNITED BANK OF INDIA VS. SATYAWATI TONDON [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH AHLUWALIA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. CHHABIL DASS AGARWAL [REFERRED TO]
KESHAVLAL KHEMCHAND AND SONS PVT LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE VS. MATHEW K.C. [REFERRED TO]
RADHA KRISHAN INDUSTRIES VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
PHOENIX ARC PRIVATE LIMITED VS. VISHWA BHARATI VIDYA MANDIR [REFERRED TO]
VARIMADUGU OBI REDDY VS. B. SREENIVASULU [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD VS. NAVEEN MATHEW PHILIP [REFERRED TO]
G. VIKRAM KUMAR VS. STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Of late, it has become a trend that when a case either not maintainable or is too weak on merits, prayer clause in the petition would be couched in such a manner so that the Court is confused and does not come to know the actual controversy in question. The instant case is one such example where the prayer clause reads as under:-

(2.) Now, in case we advert to Annexure P- 3 dtd. 3/4/2023, it is a communication addressed by the respondent-Bank to the petitioner-Unit requesting it to settle its accounts or else Bank would have to initiate legal action including action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ' the Act').

(3.) As regards Annexure P-4, it is a notice dtd. 6/4/2023 issued by the respondent-Bank under Sec. 13(2) of the Act calling upon the petitioner-Unit to discharge its liability of Rs.2,99,12,227.75 (Two Crore Ninety Nine Lakh Twelve Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Seven and Seventy Five Paise) along with charges, as applicable. In addition thereto, the petitioner was also apprised about liability to pay future interest at the contractual rate on the aforesaid amount together with incidental expenses., cost, charges etc.

Click here to view full judgment.

KARTIK FOOD Vs. STATE OF H.P.

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address