Drat Delhi Court October 2001 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.
Ravindra Kumar Vs. Uco Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-31-2001
1. The parties have filed a joint application for disposal of this appeal. The application is supported by affidavits by both the parties.2. Learned Counsel for the parties say that the matter has been compromised between the parties for a sum of Rs. 10,76,000/- out of which Rs. 2,34,000/- have already been paid by the appellant and the balance is to be paid on monthly instalments of Rs. 1,20,000/- with simple interest @ 12% per annum. The entire amount as settled between the parties is to be paid by 28th February, 2002. They also say that there is a default clause -- in case there is default in payment of any instalment, the entire decretal amount as per the impugned order shall become payable forthwith by adjusting the amount already paid.3. Learned Counsel for the parties say that in terms of the aforesaid compromise this appeal may be disposed of and this order be formed part of this Appellate Tribunal's order.4. As per the request, this appeal is disposed of in terms of the afore...
Pearl Intercontinental Ltd. and Vs. State Bank of Indore
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-2001
1. This appeal is against the order dated 15.5.2001 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I in O.A. No.368/97--State Bank of lndore v. Pearl Intercontinental Ltd. and Ors.2. The impugned order has been passed on an application moved by the appellants for amendment of their Written Statement. The application has been rejected by the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal below on the ground that the appellants by seeking amendments in the Written Statement were taking a complete somersault and wanted to say that they had availed the facility but not to the fullest extent. He also observed that lodging claim with the ECGC was totally irrelevant on that stage and that since the Written Statement had been filed in January, 1998, he was convinced that the defendants were only interested in prolonging the litigation.4. Heard learned Counsels for the parties. Copy of the amendment application on which the impugned order has been passed is at pages 9 to 11 ...
indo Foreign Commercial Agency Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-2001
1. This appeal is against the order dated 31.7.2001 passed by Mr. S.N.Aggarwal, Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi in O.A. No. 143/96, Punjab & Sind Bank v. Indo Foreign Commercial Agency (Products) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer has allowed the appellants application for setting aside the ex pane decree dated 29.8.1997 on payment of Rs. 10,000/- as costs and further on deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs with the Registrar of the Tribunal within one month from the date of the order. The respondent Bank has not filed any appeal against that order but the appellants who were applicants for setting aside the ex pane order are aggrieved with the order only in respect of the condition of the deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs. Thus, the short point involved in this appeal is whether the appellants should be put to the aforesaid condition of deposit or not before the ex pane order is set aside and the case is listed.2. Before dealing with the merit...
Green Carriers and Contractors Vs. Allahabad Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-2001
1. This is an application under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The applicant was defendant No. 17 in the O.A. No. 20/1990 decided by DRT, Jaipur. The O A. was first filed as a Civil Suit in the Court of District Judge, Jaipur. Later on, when Debts Recovery Tribunal was established in view of Section 31 of the said Act.2. There is no dispute between the parties that the applicant was served in the Civil Suit by the said Court of Distt. Judge and had also appeared before that Court and had asked for time to file written statement. It is also an admitted fact that the applicant did not file any written statement before the Court of Distt. Judge and also before the DRT, Jaipur in spite of having appeared before that Tribunal. The case proceeded ex parte against the applicant and by the impugned final order dated 30.3.2001, a decree of Rs. 69,50,761.95 was made against defendant No. 1. Out of that sum, the liability of defendant No. 1...
Zenith Gwar Gum and ors. Vs. United Bank of India
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-2001
1. This appeal is filed against the order dated 3.7.2000 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur in O.A. No. 291/97--United Bank of India v. Zenith Gwar Gum and Others. By the impugned order the Tribunal below has disposed of these applications of the appellants without giving any relief to the appellants. The first application moved by the appellants was for setting aside the exparte preliminary decree dated 17.11.1990 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur City in original Suit No.649/88. The second prayed for stay of further proceedings in the said O.A. No. 291/97 till the first application for setting aside the exparte decree was decided. The third was for cross-examination of the witnesses of the respondent Bank.2. Before coming to the merits of the appeal it would be appropriate to narrate certain facts. The respondent Bank had filed a suit No. 649/88 against the appellants before the District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur City. In ...
Smt. Surita Khanna and ors. Vs. State Bank of India and anr.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-2001
1. This is an appeal against order dated 18.8.2000 passed by learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur on an application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC for setting aside ex parts final order in the O.A. No. 466/98. By the impugned order the learned Presiding Officer had dismissed the aforesaid application.2. The appellants, Smt. Surita Khanna and Mr. Dharam Dass Khanna, were defendants 4 and 5 respectively in the aforesaid O.A. These appellants are stated to be the guarantors for the loan taken by the defendants 1, 2 and 3 being the principal debtors. The O.A. proceeded ex parte against all the defendants and was decreed.3. The appellants here only moved the aforesaid application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC. Rest of the defendants, namely, defendants 1 to 3 are stated not to have filed any such application.4. The main contention of the appellants is that they were not served in the O.A. and they came to know about the decree in the O.A. only on 6.1.2000 when they rec...
Vardhaman Containers and Papers Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-2001
1. Heard. The appellant was not a party before the Tribunal below and the case of the appellant is that the property Lal Dora land measuring 200 sq. yards with electricity power out of Khasra No. 299, situated at Gokal Pur under Lal Dorailaka, Shahdara, Delhi being sold as per Recovery Certificate which was given by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal below on the basis of the final order passed in O. A. No.93.6/95 is the property of the appellant on the basis of a Registered Sale Deed for transfer of that property having been executed by Ms.Manju Saxena, defendant No. 3 in the said O.A., in favour of the appellant.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant says that according to the records, Ms. Manju Saxena appears to have created an equitable mortgage of the said property with the respondent Bank on 5.9.1991, much after the said property was sold by Ms. Manju Saxena to the appellant. The contention is that on the date when the said equitable mortgage was created, Ms. Manju Saxena was n...
Lancer Publishers Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-2001
1. This appeal has been filed against order dated 18.7.2001 passed by learned Presiding Officer of DRT-I, Delhi in O.A. No. 756/95 Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Lancer Publishers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr..2. By the impugned order learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal below has rejected an application of the appellants for restoration of their application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC, read with Section 22(2)(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 6.7.2001. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, this appeal has been filed.3. Notice in this appeal was issued to the respondent Bank for 24.9.2001. Dasti notice was given to the appellant for service on the respondent Bank and the appellants were directed to file affidavit of service. In compliance, the appellants filed affidavit of one Capt.Bharat Verma which states that the copy of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal was taken to the concerned branch ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›