SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(SC) 588

G.T.NANAVATI, S.C.AGRAWAL
Bari Doab Bank – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent


ORDER

1. The petitioners in these petitions for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 20-3-1997 in Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 57 and 58 of 1997 are Banking Companies governed by the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). On 30-9-1996, the Central Government, in exercise of its power under Section 45(2) of the Act, made orders of moratorium in respect of the petitioner Banks.

2. The writ petitions filed by the petitioners in the Delhi High Court to challenge the said orders were dismissed by the learned Single Judge and letters patent appeals filed against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge have been dismissed by the impugned judgment.

3. The learned Judges on the Division Bench of the High Court have held that having regard to the purpose of a moratorium the petitioners could not claim a right to be heard at a stage prior to the passing of an order under Section 45(2) but have held that the petitioners will have post-decisional opportunity at the stage of filing objections to the draft scheme framed under Section 45(4) when forwarded by the Reserve Bank of India under Section 45(6) of the Act.

4. We do n







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top