Drat Delhi Court July 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.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Kukar Sons and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-15-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC37
1. Rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents 1, 2 and 4 today in Court is taken or record. Copy furnished to the Counsel opposite.2. Notice to 5th respondent was also taken already by publication in the newspaper and none has put in appearance on behalf of 5th respondent.3. Heard arguments of both the sides on the question of condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the final order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur in O. A. No. 506/ 97 on 17.10.2001. The appellant is the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and has filed Misc.Application No. 382/2001 under Section 20(4) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for condoning the delay.4. During the course of the arguments, the learned Counsel for the applicant/appellant stated that the copy of the impugned order was not served upon the applicant/appellant but the applicant/appellant got a copy of the order on 27.10.2001 when the defendants in...
Swastik Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Bank of Saurashtra and anr.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC45
The appellant had approached DRT-I, Delhi with a prayer for amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151, CPC for incorporating certain facts which the appellant has specifically mentioned in paragraphs 5 and 6 of his application for amendment. Paragraph 6 of the amendment relates to a legal plea as to whether the alleged debt is one covered by the provisions of the Act in question. Paragraph 5 relates to certain allegations as to how the cheque came to be issued. Learned Presiding Officer of DRT-I, after hearing the contesting parties, merely held that a perusal of the records shows that similar application containing same facts was filed on 12.4.1999 and the same was dismissed and, therefore, the present application was not maintainable and, accordingly, dismissed the same.But, as rightly pointed out by learned Counsel for the appellant and conceded by learned Counsel for the respondent Bank also, the earlier application for amendment was vague and ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›