ORISSA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION Vs. NARSINGH CH NAYAK
LAWS(SC)-2002-3-88
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ORISSA)
Decided on
March 07,2002
ORISSA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
Appellant
VERSUS
NARSINGH CH.NAYAK
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
Kalinga Mining Corporation VS. Arbind Construction Company Pvt.Ltd. [LAWS(ORI)-2007-1-40] [REFERRED TO]EMAAR MGF LAND LTD VS. NEERAJ MALIK [LAWS(NCD)-2014-10-96] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH SHESHMALJI JAIN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-1-919] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. JYOTI KHARE VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-167] [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL NADU AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY VS. D SANKAR [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-77] [REFERRED TO]
STAR INDIA PRIVET LTD VS. SANKARDHANI CABLE NETWORK [LAWS(DLH)-2005-12-6] [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA STEEL AND ALLOYS LTD VS. IFCI LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2006-12-12] [REFERRED TO]
Y VENKATRAYULU VS. GENERAL MANAGER [LAWS(MAD)-2006-9-40] [REFERRED TO]
DID FRENCHISEES ASSO VS. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER [LAWS(GJH)-2004-8-24] [REFERRED TO]
K P SHARMA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-5-307] [REFERRED]
SUMMIT ONLINE TRADE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF SIKKIM AND ORS. [LAWS(SIK)-2015-5-13] [REFERRED TO]
RAIL VIHAR KALYAN SAHKARI AWAS SAMITI LTD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-10-157] [REFERRED TO]
PARAMHARI ENGINEERS VS. THE MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-3-177] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. VYSHNO CONSTRUCTIONS [LAWS(APH)-2022-12-15] [REFERRED TO]
S.SONALI PAI VS. BHARATH INSTITUTE OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND RESEARCH [LAWS(MAD)-2022-9-205] [REFERRED TO]
GOPI CHAND VS. D S C FINANCE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2003-2-51] [REFERRED]
RAJMANGAL DEVELOPERS VS. COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION UJJAIN & ORS [LAWS(MPH)-2016-3-155] [REFERRED]
EVEREST ENTERPRISES VS. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2006-8-16] [REFERRED TO]
HARJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOUSING & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-27] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED VS. MAHAKALI FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2022-10-78] [REFERRED TO]
KALINGA MINING CORPORATION VS. ARBIND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT [LAWS(ORI)-2007-1-6] [REFERRED TO]
J RAMACHANDRA RAO VS. A P STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES [LAWS(APH)-2004-9-160] [REFERRED TO]
PREM LATA NIGAM VS. LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(ALL)-2017-7-69] [REFERRED TO]
RATTAN INDIA POWER LIMITED VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-5-47] [REFERRED TO]
DR. ASHOK NIGAM VS. LUCKNOW NAGAR NIGAM [LAWS(ALL)-2017-7-212] [REFERRED TO]
MIDI EXTRUSIONS LIMITED VS. U P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(ALL)-2007-8-171] [REFERRED TO]
SUPERTECH URBAN HOME BUYERS ASSOCIATION (SUHA) FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2023-3-79] [REFERRED TO]
HOTEL DEEPTI VS. ROURKELA STEEL PLANT [LAWS(ORI)-2006-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
SAWALKOTE PROSJEKTUTVIKLING AS VS. STATE [LAWS(J&K)-2010-2-19] [REFERRED TO]
ALPHA ENGINEER JAIPUR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-9-10] [REFERRED TO]
APM TERMINALS B V VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-3-160] [REFERRED TO]
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED VS. MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2013-8-332] [REFERRED TO]
STAR INDIA PVT LTD VS. ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS [LAWS(DLH)-2006-5-131] [REFERRED TO]
RAM LALI MISHRA VS. STATE OF UP [LAWS(ALL)-2010-5-138] [REFERRED TO]
PALIKA TOWNS LLP VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-5-112] [REFERRED TO]
MD. LAIQUE ALI VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2008-7-93] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)We have heard Shri Shambu Prasad singh, advocate for the appellant. The respondent no. 1 who was the writ petitioner before the High Court has not appeared despite service of notice.
(2.)The respondent no. 1 had purchased the truck bearing no. ORY-2785 utilising the loan taken from the Orissa State Financial corporation-the appellant herein. As he defaulted in depositing the installments fixed under the agreement, the corporation seized the vehicle exercising its power under sections 29 and 30 of the state Financial Corporation Act. The respondent filed the writ petition registered as OJC No. 201 of 1991 assailing the notice issued under section 30 of the Act and for quashing the notice for auction of the seized vehicle, etc. In the said proceeding, the High Court passed an interim order on 14.1.1991 which reads as under:
"Heard the petitioner in person. It is stated by the petitioner, who appears before us, that the sale of the truck bearing registration number ORY 2785 is fixed for tomorrow. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we direct stay of confirmation of sale, if sale is held. The petitioner shall deposit Rs. 25. 000. 00 (Rupees twenty five thousand) with the corporation by tomorrow. The matter shall be taken up for further orders on Tuesday (22.1.1991). "
(3.)The respondent failed to deposit the sum of Rs. 25,000. 00 as ordered by the High court. The corporation went ahead with auction as scheduled and the vehicle was sold to one Shri Navkishore Bhuyan for a sum of Rs. 2,20,000. 00, The sale was confirmed on 28.1.1991. The writ petitioner again approached the High Court for an interim order for releasing the vehicles. By the order dated 8.2.1991, the High Court issued the following directions;
"The opposite parties are directed to show cause as to why they shall not be suitably punished for having deliberately flouted the court's order by putting the vehicle into auction sale notwithstanding the interim order of this court. They should also show cause as to why they refuse to accept the money that was offered by the petitioner pursuant to the order of this court dated 14.1.1991. Along with the show cause, the opposite party no. 2 should appear in person in the court on 27.2.1991. In the meantime, the opposite parties are restrained from taking any further action for transfer of ownership of the vehicle in question. "
(2.)The respondent no. 1 had purchased the truck bearing no. ORY-2785 utilising the loan taken from the Orissa State Financial corporation-the appellant herein. As he defaulted in depositing the installments fixed under the agreement, the corporation seized the vehicle exercising its power under sections 29 and 30 of the state Financial Corporation Act. The respondent filed the writ petition registered as OJC No. 201 of 1991 assailing the notice issued under section 30 of the Act and for quashing the notice for auction of the seized vehicle, etc. In the said proceeding, the High Court passed an interim order on 14.1.1991 which reads as under:
"Heard the petitioner in person. It is stated by the petitioner, who appears before us, that the sale of the truck bearing registration number ORY 2785 is fixed for tomorrow. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we direct stay of confirmation of sale, if sale is held. The petitioner shall deposit Rs. 25. 000. 00 (Rupees twenty five thousand) with the corporation by tomorrow. The matter shall be taken up for further orders on Tuesday (22.1.1991). "
(3.)The respondent failed to deposit the sum of Rs. 25,000. 00 as ordered by the High court. The corporation went ahead with auction as scheduled and the vehicle was sold to one Shri Navkishore Bhuyan for a sum of Rs. 2,20,000. 00, The sale was confirmed on 28.1.1991. The writ petitioner again approached the High Court for an interim order for releasing the vehicles. By the order dated 8.2.1991, the High Court issued the following directions;
"The opposite parties are directed to show cause as to why they shall not be suitably punished for having deliberately flouted the court's order by putting the vehicle into auction sale notwithstanding the interim order of this court. They should also show cause as to why they refuse to accept the money that was offered by the petitioner pursuant to the order of this court dated 14.1.1991. Along with the show cause, the opposite party no. 2 should appear in person in the court on 27.2.1991. In the meantime, the opposite parties are restrained from taking any further action for transfer of ownership of the vehicle in question. "
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.