TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Modifies Tribunal's Order in Writ Petition on Agreements & Payments</h1> <h3>C.T. Ramanathan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Bank of Baroda and 5 Others</h3> The Court modified the Tribunal's order in a writ petition involving interpretation of agreements and an interim order restraining payments. It directed ... - Issues involved: Writ petition seeking Certiorarified Mandamus, interim order restraining payment, interpretation of agreements, rights of the bank and parties, modification of Tribunal's order.Interpretation of agreements: The petitioner argued that the Hypothecation Agreement and Power of Attorney restricted the mortgage to certain projects only, limiting the bank's recovery rights. The bank contended that the issue should be resolved based on documents and submissions by the parties involved.Interim order and Tribunal's power: The Tribunal passed an interim order restraining the sixth respondent from making payments to the petitioner without further direction. The Court discussed the power of Tribunals to issue ex parte orders to protect the interests of parties, citing a Supreme Court decision.Amount due and modification of order: The sixth respondent stated the total amount held up, including security deposits and pending bills. The Court noted that the actual amount payable is yet to be determined. To safeguard both parties' interests, the Court directed the sixth respondent to deposit a specified amount from released funds, allowing the petitioner to pursue defense and modify the Tribunal's order accordingly.Final directives and future proceedings: The Court clarified that it did not express an opinion on the merits of the claims but modified the Tribunal's order to prevent complete blockage of funds. Parties were directed to present relevant records for final orders, with the Tribunal instructed to expedite the process. The bank was given the option to seek modification of the garnishee order based on their claims, allowing defendants to raise objections.This writ petition was disposed of with the above directions, emphasizing the need for prompt resolution and leaving room for further actions by the parties involved.
TaxTMI 
