Drat Delhi Court September 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.
Neelkanth Industries and anr. Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-2001
1. This appeal is against an interim order dated 17.9.2001 passed by learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur in O.A. No. 572/99.2. The impugned order has been passed on the application of the appellant, a copy of which is at page 23 of the Paper Book of this appeal. Though the heading of that application is "Application for directing the applicant Bank to settle the matter as per the rehabilitation package", yet in the prayer clause the following has been stated : "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to allow this application and direct the applicant Bank to furnish the record and correctness of the annexures/reply/queries." 3. Along with the application in addition to an affidavit as many as 19 annexures were filed. These annexures, on perusal, appear to relate to certain rehabilitation package, which the appellant was seeking from the respondent Bank. From one of the annexures it appears that the Ge...
Pradeep Prasad Vs. Canara Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-2001
1. This is an application under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for waiver of the required deposit under that section. The grounds taken, inter alia, are that the respondent Bank's recovery applicatioin was not maintainable against the applicant; that the applicant had retired from the borrower firm in the year 1979; that before his retirement from the borrowing firm there was only one account of M/s. Ventura with Canara Bank, South Extension Branch; that after the applicant's retirement he neither represented M/s. Ventura nor had signed any paper or document of any type regarding the loan, that the applicant had no privity of contract with the respondent Bank; that the claim of the respondent Bank is time-barred as the applicant signed neither any acknowledgement nor documents whatsoever after his retirement from the borrowing firm; that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had already decreed the claim of the Bank against the respondent ...
i.G. Telecom Ltd. and ors. Vs. I.F.C.i. Ltd. and anr.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-2001
1. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The appellants have urged before me that their contention that the claim application of the respondent Corporations was time barred had not been decided by the Tribunal below. On perusal of the written statement, I find that a plea of limitation was taken. Further, on perusal of the impugned order, I also find that though Learned Presiding Officer has made a mention that (he defendants have contended that the claim is time barred but there is no finding given by the Tribunal below on the lea of limitation.2. The plea of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. On perusal of the concerned O. A. filed by the respondent Corporations in the Tribunal below, it is to be found that no facts have been given by them as to how their claim is within time. In para 4 of the O.A. only the following has been stated : That the applicants further declare that the application is within the limitation prescribed under Sectio...
Madan Lal Jassal Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-2001
1. This is a second appeal against order dated 18.7.2001 passed by the first Appellate Tribunal being DRT-II, Delhi arising out of a matter in execution proceedings of the decree passed by DRT in O.A. No. 195/95 Punjab & Sind Bank v. Avtar Singh and Anr.2. Before the Recovery Officer, the appellant had made an objection that he was bonafide purchaser in possession of the property and, therefore, the same cannot be sold in the aforesaid execution proceedings. The Recovery Officer by his order dated 29.5.2001 dismissed the objections saying that the sale deed in favour of the objector was void ab initio being in contravention of the interim orders of the Hon'ble High Court. Being aggrieved with that order, the objector filed appeal before the concerned DRT.3. By the impugned order, DRT-II has rejected the appeal filed by the objector against order dated 29.5.2001 passed by the Recovery Officer.In the appeal before DRT-II, Delhi in addition to the request for setting aside the Recove...
Ramavtar Aggarwal Vs. Corporation Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2001
1. This appeal has been filed by one of the defendants in O. A. No.121/99 pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur against order dated 17.7.2001 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of that Tribunal.2. The impugned order has been passed on an application dated 20.2.2001 moved by the appellant, a copy of which has today been filed by the appellant. By that application the appellant requested the Tribunal below to direct the respondent Bank to pay Rs. 1,56,373 and to dismiss the Original Application filed by the respondent Bank and for award of heavy cost of Rs. 50.000/-. The grounds for making the aforesaid prayers had been stated by the appellant in that application which inter alia are that after the appellant compromised the claim under the respondent Bank's application he came to know about the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India for recovery of dues relating to Non-performing Assets of public sector Banks; that at the time when the compromise was entered in...
Pale Ram Om Prakash Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-2001
1. This Misc. Appeal has been filed by defendant No. 6 in O.A. No.84/2000 pending before DRT, Chandigarh against order dated 4.7.2001 passed by DRT, Chandigarh. The impugned order has dealt with other matters as well but this appeal relates to only that part of the order which was passed on appellant's application for permission to cross-examine the witnesses of the applicant Bank, a copy of which is at page 95 of the Paper Book.2. The impugned order relating to the aforesaid application of the appellant may be reproduced as under : "After hearing Counsels for the parties at length and after going through the material on record, I am of the opinion, whether defendants may be permitted to cross examine the witnesses or not, it can only be decided at the time of final arguments. At this stage, there does not appear any ambiguity in the statement of witnesses vis-a-vis filed by applicant Bank which require clarification by putting the witnesses to cross-examination. However, after comple...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›