Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

M/S PACKRAFT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR V.S. MANN versus U.P.F.C. THROUGH ITS M.D., R.M. SETHI AND ORS.

Decided
13 November 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 179 · 1995 INSC 726

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

This Court in Mahesh Chandra v. UPFC, (1993] 2 SCC 279 has laid down the law as to how the properties of a defaulter are to be brought to sale by financial corporations. The petitioner contends that in spite of specific guidelines laid down therein, the property of the petitioner had not been sold consistent with those guidelines. Therefore, it amounts to wilful disobedience of the law laid down by this Court. Thereby, the respondents rendered themselves liable for conviction for contempt of this Court. We are afraid that we cannot accede to the contention.

p. 180, margin A

The law laid down by this Court in Mahesh Chandra's case (supra) is the law under Article 141. It is needless to say that everyone is bound by the law. But, if there is any infraction of the action in violation of the law laid down by this Court, appropriate remedy is to have it corrected by a judicial review but not by way of contempt proceedings in this Court.

p. 180, margin C

Under these circumstances, we cannot accede to the request made by the petitioner to issue notice to them and to convict the respondents for contempt. However, it would be open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy according to law.

p. 180, margin C

The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed. T.N.A. Petition dismissed.

p. 180, margin D