Drat Allahabad Court March 2007 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Kashi Nath Mishra Vs. Canara Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC119
1. This appeal has been filed by Mr. Kashi Nath Mishra, appellant-defendant against a judgment dated 28th April, 2005 passed by Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Lucknow directing issuance of recovery certificate against the present appellant for a sum of Rs. 14,40,324/- together with interest @ 18.10 per annum with quarterly rest from the date of the filing of the case till full realization of the dues and the Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Lucknow also directed the appellant not to transfer, alienate or create any third party interest or dispose of the mortgaged property in any manner whatsoever.2. According to the application filed by Canara Bank before D.R.T., Lucknow defendant No. 1 is a company doing business of Menthol in the name and style of Shri Krishna Industries. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were its partners and they approached to the Canara Bank for sanction of credit facility with regard to working capital and term loan and the bank sanctioned O.C.C. limit of Rs. 7.5 lacs on 26th June. ...
indo Irish Food Ltd. and ors. Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.
Court: DRAT Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC128
1. This appeal has been preferred by appellant Indo Irish Foods Ltd., against an order dated 5th October, 2006 passed by learned Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Jabalpur in Original Application No. 129/2002 rejecting the application for the amendment in the written statement.2. By moving an amendment application the appellant prayed before D.R.T., Jabalpur in Original Application No. 129 of 2002 for addition of paras 68 to 109 after the para 62 and addition in paras 43 to 46, 50 to 56, 58 and 59 of the written statement on the ground that these defences could not be taken at the initial stage when the written statement was filed. He contended that these were necessary for the just decision of the case, hence, amendment should be allowed. Written objection was filed by the bank against above amendment. According to the bank the case was fixed for final hearing and with a view to delay the proceedings, firstly the appellant took time for settlement but never came forward sincerely for settle...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›