Drat Delhi Court August 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.
M.M. Mushrooms and anr. Vs. Canara Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC81
1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants. The appellants who were defendants in O. A. 507/1999 before DRT, Chandigarh, filed an application to set aside the ex pane final order dated 8.6.2000. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, Chandigarh considered the application and directed that the application for setting aside the ex parte final order will be allowed, subject to the condition that the appellants deposit Rs. 2 lakhs (Rupees two lakhs only) within 2 months with the applicant Bank, which may be adjusted towards the loan account, with a further condition that in case the recovery application is dismissed, the said amount will be refunded to the appellants with interest. The appellants were also directed to pay cost of Rs. 2,000 (Rupees two thousand only). The learned Presiding Officer made this conditional order with the stipulation that if the amount is not deposited on time as fixed, the application for setting aside the ex, parte final order will stand dismissed.2. The ...
The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Vs. Sh. Govinda Pathara Rolling Mills
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC47
1. Appellant-Bank of Rajasthan filed O.A. No. 408/2000 before Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'). Jaipur, for the recovery of money against defendants 1 to 4 therein. The 5th defendant is another Bank and is stated to have a charge over the property mentioned in Schedule 'A' to the original application (hereinafter referred to as 'the O.A.'). The defendants 1 to 3 filed a written statement, alleging, among other things, that no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of DRT, Jaipur, and, therefore, the appellant-Bank cannot maintain the proceedings before the said DRT.They had also moved an application challenging the jurisdiction of the DRT. Therefore, the Presiding Officer, DRT, Jaipur, considered thequestion of territorial jurisdiction and decided by the order dated 5.7.2001 that except the sanction, entire transaction took place at Chennai, and, therefore, the DRT had no jurisdiction to decide the O.A.He, therefore, directed the O.A. to be returne...
Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Vs. Sh. Govinda Pathara Rolling Mills
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: III(2003)BC17
1. Appellant-Bank of Rajasthan filed O.A. No. 408/2000 before Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT), Jaipur, for the recovery of money against defendants 1 to 4 therein. The 5th defendant is another Bank and is stated to have a charge over the property mentioned in Schedule 'A' to the Original Application (hereinafter referred to as 'the O.A.'). The defendants 1 to 3 filed a written statement, alleging, among other things, that no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of DRT, Jaipur and, therefore, the appellant-Bank cannot maintain the proceedings before the said DRT.They had also moved an application challenging the jurisdiction of the DRT, Therefore, the Presiding Officer, DRT, Jaipur, considered the question of territorial jurisdiction and decided by the order dated 5.7.2001 that except the sanction, entire transaction took place at Chennai and, therefore, the DRT had no jurisdiction to decide the O.A.He, therefore, directed the O.A. to be returned ...
Roop Kamal Maheswari and anr. Vs. Andhra Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC78
1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the records on file. Appellants have approached this Tribunal with this appeal against the order dated 18.1.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of DRT-I, Delhi, dismissing their applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and for setting aside the final order passed in O.A.505/97.2. Concededly, the final order was passed on 20.11.1998. The application to set aside that order was filed on 15.10.1999, nearly after a period of 11 months. A perusal of the order of the learned Presiding Officer shows that even on 9.11.1998, no one had appeared on behalf of the appellants herein (who were defendants 2 and 3 before the DRT) and they were proceeded ex parte. The final order was not passed immediately. It is seen that on 10.11.1998, Counsel for the appellants had appeared before the DRT. Yet no steps had been taken for setting aside the order proceeding ex parte. Consequently, the final order came to be passed. These facts...
O.P. Goyal Vs. Ifci Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-14-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC39
1. O.A. No. 390/2000 filed by the 1st respondent-IFCI Ltd. against the 2nd respondent-Haryana Steel and Alloys Ltd., appellant-O.P. Goyal and others is pending before Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (herein referred as "DRT"). Appellant-O.P. Goyal filed a Miscellaneous Application for stay of further proceedings on the ground that a reference under Section 15(a) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 is pending. But the said application was opposed by the 1st respondent herein on the ground that the BIFR has on 11.5.2000 permitted the legal proceedings to be taken. The said application for stay was dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT on 13.9.2001. The appellant filed Miscellaneous Appeal No.202/2001 before this Tribunal against the said order and had also filed the orders dated 11.5.2000, 7.7.2000, 1.9.2000 and 15.11.2000 passed by the BIFR. By relying on these documents, the appellant contended that there was no permission in favour of the ...
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. G.P. Goyal and anr.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-02-2002
Reported in: III(2003)BC125
1. The appellant-State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur has come forward with this appeal against the final order passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as DRT), dated 18.12.2000 in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Sirohi Cement Ltd. and Ors. (O.A. No. 473/96 renumbered as O.A. 476/96). By this order, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, Jaipur held that the suit for the recovery of money against the 4th defendant (the first respondent herein) is not maintainable and is time-barred and, therefore, dismissed the claim of the appellant Bank as against the said 4th defendant.2. Service on the respondents in this appeal has been effected by substituted service, i.e. publication in the newspaper. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant have been heard.3. The case of the appellant-Bank before the DRT was that the 2nd respondent-company was sanctioned Cash Credit Hypothe...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›