GO thru for cue ;
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dr. Dipankar Chakraborty vs Allahabad Bank & Ors on 7 July, 2017
The petitioner has assailed the invocation of the provisions of
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) by the
bank on the ground that at the time of invocation, the same was
barred by the laws of limitation.
A proceeding under Section 19 of the RDB Act of 1993 may result in a certificate in favour of the bank. Such a certificate can be put into execution by invoking the provisions of the Act of 2002. This does not lead to an anomalous situation as the bank has contended. The laws of limitation do not take away a subsisting right, it merely postpones the enforcement of an existing right to be revived for enforcement upon happening of a future event. The bank on receiving a certificate under Section 19 of RDB Act, 1993, has its right to proceed under the Act of 2002 revived. It then needs to proceed under the Act of 2002, within the period of limitation, from the date of such certificate.
The issues raised are, therefore, answered by holding that, the initiation of the proceedings by the bank was barred by the laws of limitation on July 5, 2011 and all proceedings taken by the bank consequent upon and pursuant to the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002 dated July 5, 2011 are quashed including such notice.
Allahabad High Court
Surya Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 May, 2015
Bench: Shashi Kant
63. In the circumstances, this Court is of further view that by filing of criminal complaint a dispute of purely civil nature is given a cloak of criminality with intention to pressurize the applicant and his wife to bring them to his own terms and to enforce obligations arising out of breach of contract touching commercial transactions instead of approaching Civil Court with a view to realize money at the earliest, as such by allowing continuance of complaint and consequential proceedings relating to it would amount to abuse of process of court and to prevent the same it is just and expedient in the interest of justice to quash the same by exercising inherent power of this Court under Section 482Cr.P.C.
64. For the facts and reasons stated above, this application deserves to be allowed.
Supreme Court of India
Alpic Finance Ltd vs P. Sadasivan And Anr
It is trite law and common sense that an honest man entering into a contract is deemed to represent that he has the present intention of carrying it out but if, having accepted the pecuniary advantage involved in the transaction, he fails to pay his debt, he does not necessarily evade the debt by deception.