Back
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
Wellfare Buildings and Estates Pvt. Ltd. , A company registered under the Companies Act through its Chief Executive Officer, D. V. R. Prabhakar, S/o. D. V. J. Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Jharkhand Mantralaya – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing notice dated 11.02.2013 issued in Miscellaneous Case No. 13 of 2013 by which it has been informed that one of the branches of the petitioner-company situated at Koderma has been sealed as the petitioner–company has failed to show any paper for doing business as Non-Banking Financial Company; and further to direct the respondents-authorities to unlock the premises of the petitioner-company at Koderma and release the bank account of the petitioner.
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, read as under:
The petitioner is a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in business of Real Estate, mainly sale and purchase of plots and flats, since 1999. The company also promotes its own properties and offers its services for marketing of the products and services of similar business establishment through its marketing team.
The company has advertised and disseminated all the information regarding functioning of the company and customers, after being satisfied with the policy of the company, have booked property and
Interference at the show-cause notice stage should be rare and not routine, and should only occur if the notice suffers from jurisdictional error.
The cancellation decision was within the authority of the RBI, and the petitioner's admission of guilt and the opportunity of a personal hearing satisfied the principles of natural justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the availability of an alternative remedy under the Act may render a writ petition under Article 226 not maintainable.
A winding up petition under the RBI Act is not maintainable against a Non-Banking Financial Company that is not registered with the RBI.
The High Court ruled that parties must reveal all material facts in writ petitions and that statutory remedies available under the SARFAESI Act must be pursued before invoking writ jurisdiction.
A winding up petition under Section 45-MC of the RBI Act is not maintainable against a company that is not registered as a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) with the Reserve Bank of India.
Writs under Article 226 can be maintained against predetermination by authorities, regardless of alternative remedies available, invalidating actions based on extraneous influences.
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
