Back
VIVEK AGARWAL
M. P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Rajeev Kumar Agrawal – Respondent
ORDER
None appears for the respondents.
2 . Appellant’s contention is that appellant is aggrieved of order dated 7.5.2001 passed by learned District Judge, Bhopal rejecting an application for guarantee furnished by respondents at Bhopal on the ground that section 31(aa) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘’Act of 1951'’) is a special Act and it provides for enforcement of claim by the Financial Corporation. It is held that claim in suit under section 31(aa) is not separable from the provisions contained in section 31 which specially create jurisdiction on the respective District Judge within whom jurisdiction the industry is situated.
3. Shri Agrawal, learned counsel, reading provisions of section 46-B of the State Financial Corporation Act points out that provisions of the Act of 1951 are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being applicable to an industrial concern. He submits that therefore general law will be applicable and since guarantee was given at Bhopal, jurisdiction of Court at Bhopal can be invoked. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka Stat
A decree cannot be issued under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, as it is an enabling provision that outlines the procedure for enforcing the liability of guarantors without ....
A decree cannot be passed under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, and any execution petition based on such a decree is not maintainable.
The application under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act is maintainable despite provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
The State Financial Corporation is not liable under a decree for a defaulting borrower without compliance with notice requirements and jurisdictional procedures; attachment of its assets for past deb....
Post-liquidation, a financial institution retains the right to recover dues from guarantors, reaffirming that guarantees remain enforceable regardless of the principal debtor's discharge during insol....
The right of a Financial Corporation to recover dues from guarantors survives post-liquidation of the principal debtor, and such guarantees remain enforceable.
The court ruled that notice issued under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act constitutes part cause of action, allowing jurisdiction for the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Lucknow, and clarified that the SARF....
Guarantors remain jointly and severally liable for loan defaults regardless of the principal debtor's separate legal status, as established under Sections 29 and 31 of the State Financial Corporation....
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
