Drat Delhi Court December 2002 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.
Sohan Singh Hotels Ltd. and ors. Vs. Tourism Finance Corporation of
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC120
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the records.Even according to the learned Counsel for the applicant/appellants, their application for setting aside the ex parte final order dated 22.2.2002 was dismissed on 3.6.2002, and they had not filed any appeal against this order within time. Without doing so, even according to the appellants, they filed a second application along with an application for condonation of delay before the learned Presiding Officer to set aside the same ex parte final order. The learned Presiding Officer considered their application and dismissed it by order dated 16.10.2002.2. While considering the earlier application, he observed that the applicant/appellants were proceeded ex parte on 1.6.2001, that, on a application to set aside the order setting them ex parte, the said order was set aside by order dated 17.10.2001 subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as cost. He has pointed out that the costs were not paid.Earlier by order dated 2.3.200...
S.S. Kaushik Vs. Syndicate Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2002
Reported in: III(2003)BC53
1. The 5th defendant S.S. Kaushik in O.A. 210/ 97 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to 'the DRT") is the appellant herein. The 5th defendant was set exparte on 22.11.2001 and final order was passed on 7.1.2002. The 5th defendant S.S. Kaushik filed an application under Section 22(2)(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Act') but, the same was dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT by order dated 7.2.2002 holding the 5th defendant was not vigilant and the reasons for his non-appearance were not convincing. Aggrieved by the same, the 5th defendant S.S. Kaushik has filed this appeal. The 1st respondent Syndicate Bank who was the plaintiff in the said O.A. 210/97 has filed a reply opposing the appeal.2. I have heard Counsel for the appellant and the 1st respondent, and perused the record.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant/5th defendant contends that the appella...
Ashok Malhotra Vs. Syndicate Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-18-2002
Reported in: III(2003)BC75
1. The 4th defendant Mr. Ashok Malhotra in O.A. No. 210/97 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the DRT) is the appellant herein. He was proceeded ex parte and final order was passed on 7.1.2002. Therefore, the appellant/4defendant filed an application for setting aside the ex parte final order. But, the same was dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT by his order dated 25.2.2002 on the ground that there is no reason for setting aside the ex parte final order. Aggrieved, the 4th defendant has come forward with this appeal. Notice was dispensed with for respondents 2 to 11.Though a Counsel wanted to appeal for the 9th respondent, later on even Vakalatnama was not filed for the 9th respondent, and he was proceeded against ex parte. The 1st respondent/plaintiff Bank has filed a suitable reply opposing the appeal.2. I have heard the Counsel for the appellanl/4th defendant and the 1st respondent/ plaintiff Bank, and have perused the records...
Kanta Devi JaIn Vs. Central Bank of India
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC104
1. Heard Counsel for the appellant. This is only an application for amendment of the relief column in the appeal, which is incomplete. The amendment proposed is only formal, and, therefore, this application is allowed. Let the amendment as proposed be carried out in the Memorandum of Appeal by the learned Counsel for the appellant today itself. This application is disposed of accordingly.2. The appellant raised an objection before the Recovery Officer (DRT-II, Delhi) that the property in question should not be attached and sold in execution of the Recovery Certificate inasmuch as it was only residential property and, therefore, exempt under Section 60 of the C.P.C. This objection was rejected by the Recovery Officer on the ground that the property is a mortgaged property. Therefore, the question of its being exempted from attachment and sale by virtue of Section 60 did not arise. Therefore, he rejected the objection. The appellant went on appeal to the DRT-II, Delhi wherein the appell...
Batra Traders and anr. Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
Reported in: III(2003)BC27
1. Learned Counsel for the applicant states that he has produced copy of the O.A. and points out from paragraph 7(a)(i) that the property mentioned therein is the same property referred to in the Power of Attorney Deeds. In these circumstances, Mr. Joginder Singh Logani is permitted to act as Power of Attorney agent of the 3rd respondent Manjari Gupta.2. Office Note indicates that the 1st respondent Bank has been served, but none has put in appearance on behalf of the 1st respondent.3. Learned Counsel for the applicant points out that even in Miscellaneous Application 540/2001, the respondents 2 and 3 have indicated that they have no objection if the transfer application is allowed.4. Learned Counsel for the applicant points out there are five matters in the whole concerning the applicants and the Bank in question, and four of the matters are before the Recovery Officer of DRT-I, Delhi whereas RC 187/2002 arising from O.A. 330/96 is only pending before the Recovery Officer of DRT-III,...
Godavri Shilpkala Ltd. Vs. Tourism Finance Corporation of
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: III(2003)BC46
1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. The appellant has come forward with this appeal against the order dated 14.8.2002, declining the request of the appellant to permit cross-examination of the witnesses for the Bank. This application has been dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer of DRT-II, Delhi on the ground that the application for permission to cross-examination of witnesses does not disclose any reason for doing so. The copy of the application filed before the DRT is also at page 102 of the paper book. A perusal of this application shows that this application is bereft of details as to why the witnesses are required for cross-examination. Therefore, this application has been rightly dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer. However, learned Counsel for the appellant points out that even at the time of advancing arguments on this application, it was pointed out, and she had undertaken to furnish the details as to why the witnesses are to be cross-examined, and thoug...
Dinesh JaIn Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: III(2003)BC5
1. 1. After arguing the appeal for some time, the learned Counsel for the appellant wants to withdraw this appeal with liberty to move a fresh application before the concerned DRT for the purpose of seeking permission to cross-examine the witnesses by giving details of the names of the witnesses who have to be cross-examined, the points on which the witnesses have to be cross-examined, and the necessity for cross-examining them also. In view of the fact that the learned Presiding Officer has also passed the impugned order declining the request of the appellant for permission to cross-examine the witnesses, stating it is vague, I am of the opinion, in the interest of justice, the appellant can be given an opportunity to move a fresh application before the DRT as prayed for by him. Accordingly, the request for withdrawing the appeal with liberty to move fresh application giving all the details has to be and is accepted. This appeal is disposed of with these observations and with liberty...
Union Bank of India Vs. Jenus Pharmaceuticals India and
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-2002
Reported in: III(2003)BC35
1. The appellant-Union Bank of India, filed a Civil Suit before the District Judge, Jaipur City, for the recovery of Rs. 10,60,951.92 against the respondents, which was decreed on 19.7.1989 for the said sum with subsequent interest at 16.5% per annum from the date of suit till realisation along with costs. The appellant Bank filed an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') for issuance of a recovery certificate.This became necessary because the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') came to be passed and Sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the said Act provides as follows: "31. Transfer of pending cases.--(1) Every suit or other proceeding pending before any Court immediately before the date of establishment of a Tribunal under this Act, being a suit or proceeding the cause of action wherein it is based is such that it would have been, if it had arisen after such...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›