Drat Allahabad Court October 2002 Judgments
Rama Kant Upmanyu Vs. State Bank of India
Court: DRAT Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC122
1. The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 20 of the Act.Registrar reported that appeal is defective as compliance of Rule 9 read with Section 21 of the Act has not been made. Learned Counsel for the appellant objected against this report and submitted that main relief of the appellant is to set aside the order dated 20.3.2002 by which the application under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. was rejected by the Presiding Officer of D.R.T. He further submitted that if the application for recall is allowed then the ex parte order dated 25.4.2000 will automatically be set aside. Therefore, appeal is virtually against the order dated 20.3.2000. On 6.6.20021 held that compliance of Rule 9 read with Section 21 of the Act has not to be made under the facts and circumstances of the case. On 10th July, 2002 appeal was admitted after hearing the learned Counsel for the Bank also as delay was already condoned on 12.6.2002.2. On 13th August, 2002 learned Counsel for the appellant prayed for sta...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. Rizvi Exports Ltd.
Court: DRAT Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC96
1. Original Application No. 6 of 2000 was filed under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for recovery of Rs. 1,89,38,751 44 (Rs. one crore eighty-nine lakhs thirty-eight thousand seven hundred fifty-one and paise forty-four) only against the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 who are joint ly and severally liable to repay the Bank's dues together with interest thereon @ 16.83% per annum with quarterly rests in respect of debts due in the Cash Credit (Hypothecation) and EPC accounts and @ 20% per annum with quarterly rests in respect of the debts due in the FBP Account. The applicant-Bank has also claimed the recovery of this amount through the sale of the hypothecated goods and immovable properties equitably mortgaged with the applicant-Bank. A cost of the suit has also been claimed. The said suit has been received on transfer under operation of law in this Tribunal and re-numbered the case as T.A. 1593 of 2000.2. The facts of the case as containe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›