Back
C.K.THAKKER, ALTAMAS KABIR
PRESTIGE LIGHTS LTD – Appellant
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA – Respondent
JUDGMENT:
C.K. THAKKER, J.
1.Leave granted.
2.The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated March 29, 2005 passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 293 of 2005 by which the petition filed by the petitioner (present appellant) was dismissed in limine.
3.To appreciate the controversy, few relevant facts may be noted.
4.Appellant herein is a Private Limited Company engaged in manufacturing bulbs, chokes and fittings. The factory of the appellant is situated at Dhalwala Industrial Area, Rajpur Road, Dehradun, Uttranchal. In 1992, the appellant obtained a loan of Rs. 85 lakhs from State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Radha Palace, Rajpur Road, Dehradun respondent herein. The Company mortgaged its land and building with the respondent-Bank. According to the appellant, till 2001, the business of the appellant was comparatively good and it had no problem in depositing the interest accrued towards credit facilities. In or about 2001-02, however, because of heavy slump in the market due to arrival of cheaper Chinese Products, the appellant suffered huge losses and could not deposit the interest-amount with the respondent-Bank. The re
No cases identified as overruled, reversed, abrogated, or otherwise treated as bad law. All references treat cases as good law or use them positively.
Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC 449: Overwhelmingly cited positively across nearly all entries (e.g., URC India Gorakhpur VS State Bank of India - Dishonour Of Cheque (2006), Brij Lal VS H. R. T. C. - 2008 0 Supreme(HP) 58, Dimasa Associates VS North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council - 2008 0 Supreme(Gau) 629, Dalip Singh VS State of U. P. - 2009 8 Supreme 485, etc.). Phrases like "Similar view was taken by Apex Court", "The Tribunal has rightly followed the law laid down", "well settled principle of law as laid down", "reliance is placed on", "Apt to quote a judgment", "buttressed by relying on", "same view was reiterated" indicate approval, following, and reliance as authoritative precedent on topics like writ jurisdiction, suppression of facts, clean hands doctrine, and bank recovery. No negative treatment observed.
Other cases (e.g., State of U.P. v. Bridge & Roof Co., Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank of India (2008) 2 SCC 326, K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2008) 12 SCC 481, G. Jayashree v. State of A.P.): Routinely cited alongside Prestige Lights with phrases like "relied upon", "similar view", "catena of judgments", indicating positive treatment and grouping as supportive precedents on discretionary jurisdiction and full disclosure.
Kalachand Mahanta VS Tarun Kanti Adhikary - 2016 0 Supreme(Cal) 739: Prestige Lights Ltd. - Explicitly distinguished: "So far as the decision of Prestige Lights Ltd. (supra) is concerned, the same has no manner of application in this case." Court separates it factually/contextually but does not criticize or reject its legal principle.
Abu Sahid Gazi VS State of West Bengal - 2021 0 Supreme(Cal) 381: Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC 449 - Distinguished by learned Single Judge: "in our opinion, has no applicability in the present case." Used to dismiss writ but separated on facts, not rejected as bad law.
All other cases (e.g., Aswini Kumar Baliar Singh (2006) 6 SCC 759 Pratik Marketing Put. Ltd. VS Pratap Properties Ltd. - 2008 0 Supreme(Cal) 465, Muneesh Suneja (2001) 3 SCC 92 Oswal Fats & Oils Ltd. VS Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly - 2010 0 Supreme(Raj) 378, United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon (2008) 1 SCC 560 Shivananda Gurusiddappa VS The Deputy Commissioner - 2009 0 Supreme(Kar) 125, etc.): Cited with neutral or positive phrases like "relies on", "in support of", "reference was made", without any indication of disapproval, questioning, or limitation.
Mardia Chemicals LTD. Etc. VS Union Of IndiaEtc. - 2004 3 Supreme 243: Describes constitutional validity of SARFAESI Act (upheld except Section 17(2) declared ultra vires). Appears to reference Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India ((2004) 4 SCC 311) implicitly, but treatment is descriptive ("upheld except... declared ultra vires") rather than citing a specific case name. Unclear if this is a case treatment or statutory analysis; categorized separately as it lacks explicit treatment signals like "followed" or "overruled."
Several fragmentary references (e.g., State of U.P. v. [incomplete in 00600004982], Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. [incomplete in 01800006662]): Treatments unclear due to truncation, but visible portions show positive citation (e.g., "Recently, in Prestige Lights... even if a co-delinquent...") without negative indicators.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
