Skip to content

Drat Delhi Court July 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.

Jul 24 2001

Usha Mankotia and ors. Vs. the Benaras State Bank Ltd.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Decided on: Jul-24-2001

Reported in: II(2003)BC22

1. This appeal has been filed against order dated 7.8.2000 in O.A. No.712/95--The Benaras State Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Appu Amusement Machines Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.2. By the impugned composite order the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal below has allowed three interim applications of the respondent Bank, the first filed on 22.7.1996 for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased defendant No. 3 in the O.A., the second filed on 16.4.1998 for setting aside the abatement and the third filed on 21.8.1998 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.3. The undisputed facts of the case relating to the aforesaid applications are that defendant No. 3, namely, Group Capt. V.C.Mankotia died during pendency of the case; that by the time of his death notices on the defendant had not been served that notices were directed to be served through publication in newspaper and the next date fixed before the Tribunal below was 15.3.1996; that on that date i.e. 15.3.1996, the Counsel appearing for ...


Jul 20 2001

Shri Shiv Dayal and anr. Vs. Union Bank of India and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Decided on: Jul-20-2001

1. This appeal is against orderdated 16.7.1998 passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur in O.A. No. 375/1997--Union Bank of India v.Rathambhor Wines and Beer Wholesale & Ors..2. By the impugned order a decree has been passed for Rs. 17,81,655/- along with cost of the proceedings and future interest @ 10.5% per annum with quarterly rests from 12.5.1997 till realization against defendants 1 to 4 in the Original Application. It is further directed that the applicant Bank would be entitled to recover the aforesaid amount by the sale of mortgaged property of defendants 5 to 9 also.3. This appeal has been filed only by defendant Nos. 2 and 3. Rest of the judgment debtors do not appear to have challenged the impugned order. The undisputed facts are that defendants 2, 3 and 4 in the name of defendant No. 1 in the O.A. had sought an overdraft facility with an upper limit of Rs. 3.75 lakhs from Union Bank of India branch office at Baran (Rajasthan) and in lieu of that facility, deposited on...


  • ‹ Prev
  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial