Drat Allahabad Court July 2006 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
i.A. Ansari, Proprietor of Sharp Vs. Uco Bank
Court: DRAT Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC54
1. This appeal has been preferred by the above named defendant appellants against the order dated 16th November, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Jabalpur in case No. T.A. 1023 of 1998 whereby the prayer of the respondent Bank for taking some documents on records has been allowed.2. There is chequered history of the case, the respondent Bank had filed the above mentioned case for recovery of non-paid loan amount from the appellants. The appellants had taken the plea that they have never authorised the borrowers for mortgaging their property and as such the Bank cannot proceed with the mortgaged property as security.During the pendency of the case at the instance of the defendants including the appellants some of the Bank officials were cross-examined and then the case was closed and was fixed for judgment on 17th October, 2002 after hearing final argument. Then on 9th October, 2002 the respondent Bank had filed the petition for taking some documents on record rega...
Decora Carpet and ors. Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: DRAT Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: 2(2007)BC29
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 28th January, 2005 passed by the leaned Presiding Officer, D.R.T.. Allahabad in case No. M.A. No. 97 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the restoration application filed by the appellants under Section 22(2)(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act (henceforth shall be referred to as "RDDBFI Act") for setting aside of the ex parte judgment passed in T.A. No. 160 of 2000 has been dismissed. The appellants were defendant Nos. 1 to 6 in the original case.2. The admitted position is that the respondent Bank had filed an original suit being original suit No. 92 of 1991 before the Civil Judge, Mirzapur for recovery of Rs. 28,75,273.58 together with future and pendente lite interest and other usual reliefs. In the original suit the appellant-defendants had put in appearance and filed their written statement and contested the case on day-to-day basis. After coming into force of the Act, the original suit was...
Vitik Pharma and ors. Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC46
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12th January, 2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Allahabad in miscellaneous application No. 75 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the application filed under Section 22(2)(g) of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the "RDDBFI Act") for setting aside the ex parte judgment dated 11th November, 2002 passed in T.A. No. 1223 of 2000 have been rejected.2. The respondent had filed an original suit namely Original Application No. 444 of 1990 before the Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar for decree of Rs. 15,51,137.25 against the appellants and others. In that original suit the defendants appeared and filed written statement and then due to operation of law the original suit was transferred to the D.R.T., Jabalpur and renumbered as T.A. No. 984 of 1999. After formation of D.R.T. at Allahabad the case was again transferred from Jabalpur and registered...
M.M. Carpet Industries and ors. Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC44
2. The learned Counsel for the applicants in support of his application referred notice dated 16th August, 2000 under Section 13(2) and the notice dated 1st December, 2003 under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Ordinance, 2002. It is stated that two different loan amounts are mentioned in these notices. The amount under C.C.account No. 91 in the notice dated 16th August, 2000 is shown as nil whereas under notice dated 1st December, 2003 it is shown as Rs. 4,70,966.88. He further contended that the loan account number and the date of classification and other details of non-performing asset are not given in the notice under Section 13(2). He further contended that the notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) were issued under the Ordinance which has lost its validity after the Act coming into force.In this connection he referred the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in some other case quashing the notices issu...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›