Drat Delhi Court May 2002 Judgments

industrial Development Bank of Vs. Autolite (India) Ltd. and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant on the point of admission of this appeal.2. This appeal is against order dated 1.4.2002 passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur in O.A. No. 140/2001. By the impugned order, the application of the defendant company in the aforesaid O.A. to allow disposal of its assets in order to pay dues and debts has been disposed of by the Tribunal below. The Tribunal below has allowed the defendant company to sell the Glass Lens Project Equipment. According to the order, the sale is to be conducted in presence of IDBI (who moved the recovery application) and in presence of the Recovery Officer of the Tribunal. As per the order, the sale price so received as per arrangement arrived at will be deposited in a separate account to be opened in a nationalized Bank under the authority of the Recovery Officer of the concerned Tribunal. The Recovery Officer has been directed to make FDR of the amount so received after allowing retention of 20% of the sale price b...

Puran Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Punjab National Bank

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2003)BC29

1. This is an application moved by the respondent Bank for recall of order dated 14.5.2001 passed by this Appellate Tribunal whereby the hearing of this appeal was directed to be ex parte against the respondent. Reply has been filed by the appellant to this application.3. During the pendency of this application the respondent Bank filed on additional affidavit in response to order dated 21.11.2001 by this Appellate Tribunal.4. The facts of the case are that this appeal was filed before the DRAT, Mumbai on 26.3.1999. Upon establishment of this Appellate Tribunal the record of this appeal was received by this Appellate Tribunal from Mumbai and, consequently, on 28.9.2000, fresh notices to the parties were sent for 24th January, 2001. On that date none appeared for the parties and the matter was directed to be listed before the Registrar on 1.2.2001. Mr. S.K. Gandhi appeared for the appellants before the Registrar on that date but none appeared for the respondent Bank. This appeal came u...

Malti Gulati and anr. Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2003)BC70

1. This appeal has been filed by two persons, namely, Ms. Malti Gulati and Shri Adarsh Gulati. They were defendant Nos. 6 and 7, respectively, in O.A. No. 374/95 -- Punjab National Bank v. M/s. Sakar Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.2. This appeal is against order dated 28.5.1997 passed by the Tribunal below in the aforesaid O.A. The grievance of the appellants is that even though the appellants were neither the borrower of the loan nor the guarantor still the entire loan liability with interest has been decreed against them jointly and severally along with the rest of the defendants who were either the borrowers or the guarantors. The appellants contend that for the loan, they had only mortgaged their property and, therefore, their liability was only to the extent of the value of the mortgaged property. They say that the decree against them ought to have been limited to the sale of the mortgaged property and not a personal decree against them.3. On facts, I find that the O.A. of the...

Applied Electro Magnetics Pvt. Vs. Syndicate Bank

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: II(2003)BC89

1. This is an appeal against order dated 11.2.2002 passed by DRT-I, Delhi in O. A. No.210/97 Syndicate Bank v. Infocom Digital Systems Ltd. and Ors.2. The appellant is defendant No. 10 in the said O.A. The O.A.proceeded ex parte and a final order against all the defendants was passed on 7.1.2002. The appellant moved an application before the Tribunal below for setting aside the ex parte decree against it. By the impugned order, that application of the appellant has been rejected and hence this appeal.3. Mr. Pramod Saigal, Advocate for the appellant contended that the appellant was neither the borrower nor the guarantor. It had only accepted certain bills of exchange but those bills were not entertained for payment as the goods had been returned to defendant No. 1 which had taken the loan from the respondent Syndicate Bank. During the course of the submissions made by learned Counsels for the parties, it emerged that the respondent Bank had sent the bills of exchange to the appellant f...