Drat Delhi Court January 2003 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.
Allahabad Bank Vs. Zoravar Vanaspati Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-2003
Reported in: II(2003)BC113
1. The appellant-Allahabad Bank filed O.A. 572/97 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'), Delhi for the recovery of certain amounts from the respondents 1 to 4 herein, who were defendants in the O.A. In response to the O. A., the respondents 1, 2 and 4 are stated to have entered appearance, and opposed the O.A., among other grounds, on the ground that the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'RIICO') was a necessary party, and without impleading the same, the O.A. was not maintainable. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, Delhi took up this preliminary objection alone for consideration, and by his order dated 1.7.1999 held that RIICO is a necessary party. He, therefore, dismissed the O.A. on the ground that RIICO had not been impleaded.2. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal, which was originally pending before the DRAT, Mumbai, and subsequently, was transferred to t...
Rohit Packaging Industries and Vs. Dena Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC62
1. Appellants herein are defendants in O.A. 86/ 2001 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi-II (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'). On 2.1.2002, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the final order against the defendants/appellants. The appellants filed an application to set aside that final order on the ground that they did not receive the show cause notice in respect of the O.A. that on receipt of the final order, they found that the show cause notices sent to them had been received back with the report as "refused", whereas they did not receive or refuse the show cause notices. But the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT held that refusal is deemed to be valid service in law, that there was no reason to disbelieve the report made on the envelope, and that there was no merit in the application. He, therefore, dismissed the application in limine by his order dated 30.1.2002.2. Aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal. The respondent/plaintiff Bank has fi...
Mrs. Usha Anand Vs. Canara Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC149
1. Respondent-Canara Bank filed O.A. 518/95 against (1) Kapri International Pvt. Ltd., (2) Mohan Anand, (3) Mrs. Usha Anand (appellant herein), and (4) C.L. Anand (since deceased) for the recovery of Rs. 33,04,41,348.77 with subsequent interest and costs. The abovesaid O.A. is pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT').2. On 12.11.2002, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed, among other orders, the order that "None is appearing on behalf of Mr.Rahul Mehra and Mr. Sunil Magan, Counsels for the defendant Nos. 2 and 3. None is appearing on behalf of defendants 1, 2 and 3 today, hence, proceeded ex parte". Learned Presiding Officer also passed the following order: "Ms. Geeta Vadehra submits that she had moved an LA. today vide Diary No. 3031/ 2002 in the Registry. She does not want to press this application and wants to move another application for bringing LRs of defendant No. 4 (Sh. C.L. Anand deceased). Application being LA. N...
Chahal Foods Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. State Bank of Patiala and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC65
1. Office note indicates that the rejoinder, the translations and also the certified copy of the order dated 16.8.1999 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as DRT, Jaipur) have been filed into the Court. Though the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent objects to the taking on record the rejoinder and the annexures filed therewith, in the interests of justice, in my view, the rejoinder and the annexures can be taken on record. Accordingly, they are taken on record.2. I have heard arguments of both the sides on the appeal and perused the records.3. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, Jaipur passed the final order in O.A. 267 / 98 on 2.8.1999 read with the order dated 16.8.1999.The order dated 16.8.1999 became necessary in view of the fact that the plaintiff Bank was directed to file a revised statement of account along with an affidavit by order dated 2.8.1999. After the filing of the revised statement, ultimately the final order directing the a...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›