Drat Delhi Court December 2001 Judgments

Canara Bank Vs. Punjab National Bank

Court: DRAT Delhi

1. These applications are under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for waiver of the pre-deposit and for stay of the execution, respectively.2. I take up Misc. Appeal No. 304/2001 for waiver of required deposit under Section 21 first. The grounds for waiver taken in the application are that both the parties to the appeal are Nationalised Banks; that as per facts of the case, the liability of the appellant is not in the general nature of a debt taken by individual and commercial establishments but emanates from Counter Guarantee given by the appellant to the respondent Bank and that in case the pre-condition of deposit of 75% of the amount is not waived, great prejudice would be caused to the appellant.3. The applicant also relies upon the contents of the appeal to plead for waiver of pre-deposit. This application has been opposed by the respondent Punjab National Bank.5. Facts which appear to be there are that New Bank of India gave a...

P.C. Gupta Vs. Indian Bank and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

1. This is a second appeal against order dated 17.9.2001 passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi in First Appeal No. 6/2001 against order dated 20.8,2001 passed by the concerned Recovery Officer of that Tribunal.2. The appellant claims that he was in possession of a property of the judgment-debtor and has illegally been evicted from the same. He made the same grievance before DRT-II, Delhi by filing an appeal before it impugning the order of the Recovery Officer whereby he was directed to be evicted. Learned Presiding Officer of DRT in the impugned order came to a conclusion that the appeal before him had become infructuous as the appellant had already been evicted from the mortgaged property pursuant to the order of the Recovery Officer dated 20.8.2001. He, however, dismissed the appeal on merit as well saying that the appellant was admitted as a tenant in the property in question in the year 1994, after the preliminary decree for realisation of the debt had already been passed b...

Golden ProteIn and ors. Vs. State Bank of India

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: II(2003)BC19

1. This is application under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for waiver of the pre-deposit of 75% required under that section. The applicants have filed an Appeal No. 164/2000 against the final order dated 31.5.1999 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi in OA No. 339/97. As per the impugned order there is a decree against all the appellants. A sum of Rs. 8,13,47,820.32 is to be recovered from the appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and a sum of Rs. 1,03,86,677.76 is to be recovered from all the appellants along with one Mr. Umesh Luthra, who was defendant No. 7 in the said OA. Said Mr. Umesh Luthra has filed a separate appeal bearing No. 129/2000.2. On perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that all the appellants, who were defendants in the said OA, failed to show cause before the Tribunal below. It appears that notices were sent to the appellants and when the same could not be served normally through registered post they were ...

Umesh Luthra Vs. State Bank of India and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: II(2003)BC8

1. This is application under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for waiver of pre-deposit of 75% required under that section. The applicant has filed an Appeal No.192/2000 against the final order dated 31.5.1999 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi in O.A. No. 339/97. In that O.A. there were seven defendants and the applicant was defendant No. 7. Rest defendants 1 to 6 have also filed an appeal against the same final order, which is Appeal No. 164/2000.2. As per the impugned order there is a decree against all the defendants. Against defendant Nos. 1 to 3 the decree is of Rs. 8,13,47,820.32 and against all the defendants there is a further decree of Rs. 1,03,86,677.76. Since the applicant here is defendant No. 7 in the said O.A., the decree against him is to the tune of Rs. 1,03,86,677.76.3. On perusal of the order, it transpires that notices were sent to the applicant/appellant and when the same could not be served normally t...

Manjit Kumar and anr. Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

1. Heard Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari has appeared for respondent Bank. He also made submissions.The impugned order has been passed on an application moved by the appellants under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC saying that the recovery application of the respondent Bank is barred by law. I have perused Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, which reads as follows : (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; 2. The appellants appear to rely on Clause (d) of the aforesaid rule according to which, the ...