ARUN MISHRA
SHARADIK RUBBER AND INDUSTRIES LTD. , CALCUTTA – Appellant
Versus
M. P. FINANCIAL CORPORATION, INDORE – Respondent
Arun Mishra, J.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, seeking the quashment of the proceedings initiated by the M.P. Financial Corporation, Indore, u/s 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 for sale of the property to respondent 2, M/s Sai Chemicals Ltd. Bombay on 24-4-1995 and to direct the Corporation to restore the possession of the factory to the petitioner. By way of amendment further relief has been sought to restore the machinery and the property to the factory premises in the State in which it was on 25-4-1995. Subsequently the property has been sold to respondent 3, M/s Kali Sales Corporation.
The petitioner-company avers in the petition that the company had set up an industry at a huge expense of Rs. 25 lacs at Pachmarhi Road, Piparia, for manufacture of hawai chappals, canvass shoes and cycle tyre-tubes in the year 1965. In the year 1971 the company took a loan of Rs. 9,50,000/- from M.P. Financial Corporation and thereafter took the loan of Rs. 6,50,000/- in the year 1978. The factory came into difficulty and became a sick unit and was closed in the year 1989 and it could not repay the loan of the
Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Vs. M/s. GAR Re-Rolling Mills and another
Haryana Financial Corporation and Another Vs. Jagdamba Oil Mills and Another
Mahesh Chandra Vs. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation and others
Dogar Tools Private Limited and Others Vs. Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation and Another
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.