Drat Delhi Court October 2003 Judgments
Himachal Pradesh Financial Vs. Union Bank of India and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-2003
Reported in: III(2004)BC109
1.1st respondent-Union Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') filed OA 473/98 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT) against the respondents 2 to 4 herein, (as defendants 1 to 3, hereinafter referred to as "the defendants 1 to 3"), and the appellant herein (as the 4th defendant, hereinafter referred to as "the appellant-4th defendant") for the recovery of money allegedly due to it. "That the plants and machineries hypothecated and purchased from the loan amount advanced towards the term loan and the entire stock, stored, purchased from the Cash Credit (Hypothecation) Loan Account be allowed to be taken in possession of the Bank from defendant No. 4 and in case the same is sold by defendant No. 4. Sale Value be decreed against defendant No. 4." 3. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the ex, pane final order dated 23.2.1999 holding that the respondent-Bank is entitled to recover from defendants 1 to 3 jointl...
Tag this Judgment!R.P. Goyal and Co. and anr. Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-2003
Reported in: III(2004)BC229
1. Respondent-State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Respondent-Bank') filed O.A. 195/2000 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') for the recovery of money allegedly due to it from the appellants. The 1st appellant is the proprietary concern of the 2nd appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants/defendants'). The appellants/ defendants filed their written statement to the O.A. denying the execution of certain documents relied upon by the respondent-Bank. By way of evidence the respondent-Bank has field three affidavits, namely, those of (1) Haninder Singh Kalra dated 14.3.2000, (2) Bhagwan Das Mal dated 11.3.2000, and (3) Dwarka Prasad Gupta dated 11.3.2000. On behalf of the appellants, the 2nd appellant Rajendra Prasad Goyal has filed his affidavit by way of evidence.2. The appellants/defendants filed an application dated 20.6.2001 seeking permission of the DRT to cross-examine Bhagwan Das Mal and Dwarka ...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. Doon Valley Rice Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-2003
Reported in: IV(2004)BC71
1. This is an application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, if any. But Mr. S.L. Gupta states that the appellant got certified copy on 7.4.2003 and, therefore, this appeal filed on 21.5.2003, is in time.He, therefore, states that there is no delay, and accordingly the application may be dismissed as not pressed. Accordingly, the application is dismissed as not pressed.3. In view of the order passed in Miscellaneous Application 266/2003, the appeal is taken on record. The Registry to assign a suitable dumber.4. Heard, Mr. S.L. Gupta, Counsel for the appellant. The appellant has approached this Tribunal with this appeal aggrieved by the Order dated 25.3.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, Chandigarh in application 6564/2002, the order passed on an application filed by the defendants for directing the applicant Bank to produce the certain documents. The appellant raised an objection that these documents are not relevant for the purpose of the O.A. inasmuc...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Kumar Arora and anr. Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-22-2003
Reported in: III(2004)BC169
1. 1st respondent-Bank Slate Bank of Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank") filed Original Application 106/2001 against appellants (who are defendants 2 and 1 respectively in the Original Application; and hereinafter referred to as "the appellants-defendants") and three other defendants before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the DRT") for the recovery of Rs. 68,59,095/- with interest and costs.2. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the final order dated 12.4.2002 against the appellant-defendants.3. The appellant-defendants filed Miscellaneous Application 138/2002 on 23.7.2002 to set aside the said final order urging that there was no service on summons on them, that neither the orders setting them ex parte nor the final order was served upon them and, therefore, they have been denied an opportunity to put for their case. The appellant-defendants also urged that Mr. Manoj Munde, the field officer of the respondent-Bank...
Tag this Judgment!Ashish JaIn and anr. Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2003
Reported in: III(2004)BC264
1. Respondent-Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent - Bank') filed O.A. 936/95 on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT) against (1) M/s.Tex Tube India, (2) Mr. Prem Chand Jain, and (3) Mrs. Manju Saxena. The final order dated 8.7.79 was passed against the above said defendants to pay jointly and severally Rs. 16,74,495.48 with interest and costs.In the O.A., the respondent - Bank alleged that the 2nd defendant-Prem Chand Jain was the sole proprietor of the 1st defendant-concern, while the 3rd defendant-Mrs. Manju Saxena is a guarantor, who also created an equittable mortgage over the proprieties mentioned in the O.A. to secure the repayment of the amounts advanced to defendants 1 and 2. The final order also directs that the respondent-Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged property for realising its dues.2. The appellants, who are not the defendants but the legal representatives of the 2nd defendant-Prem Chand Ja...
Tag this Judgment!Sharat Chander Khandelwal and Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-2003
Reported in: III(2004)BC215
1. 1st respondent-Bank, Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') filed the Original Application against (1) M/s. Damask International, (2) Mrs. Kiran Dua and (3) Mr. Surinder Kumar for the recovery of the money due to it. The respondent-Bank alleged that the 3rd defendant-Surinder Kumar had equitably mortgaged 2 Bighas and 8 Biswas of land in Khasra No. 25/21 situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Safipur, Ranhola, and prayed (among others) for an order for the sale of this property.2. In pursuance of the Recovery Certificate issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'), the learned Recovery Officer ordered the attachment of mortgaged property by his order dated 30.4.2001. The appellants who are third parties, filed their objections before the learned Recovery Officer urging that they have purchased the land measuring 1015 square yards in Khasra No.25/21 situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Safipur, Ranho...
Tag this Judgment!Harpartap Steels Limited and ors. Vs. Ifci Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-10-2003
Reported in: III(2004)BC62
The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 1.10.2003 passed in Application No. 4461/2003 by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, Chandigarh, whereby the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT disposed of the application filed by the appellants/defendants for holding that the documents filed by the respondent-Bank along with the rejoinder should not be taken on record. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants/defendants is that these documents were neither referred to in the O.A. nor filed along with the O.A., but were filed only with the rejoinder.2. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT has observed that he will not decide the admissibility of the documents into evidence at this stage, but he will do so at the time of the final decision. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that if this point is to be decided at the time of final decision, it will be too late for the appellants to put forward their case regarding admissibility and relevancy.3. In ...
Tag this Judgment!B.D. Aggarwal and Sons Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-07-2003
Reported in: IV(2004)BC119
1. First respondent-State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank) filed O.A. 121/98 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur against the appellant/1st defendant-company (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellant/defendant') and the respondents 2 to 12 herein. This O.A. was subsequently transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') and taken on its file as O.A. 915/2001.2. The appellant/defendant filed a written statement dated 21.12.98 to the said O.A. The appellant defendant urged, among other things, that the respondent-Bank had assured to enhance the limit of the facilities granted to the appellant/defendant to Rs. 19 crores since the appellant/defendant had entered into various MoUs and agreements, but did not allow the appellant/defendant to enjoy the enhanced limit and, therefore, the appellant/defendant had suffered loss. The appellant/defendant pleaded in the written statement that it is reserving its right ...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Ganga Organic Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2003
Reported in: III(2004)BC123
1. Respondent-State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') filed O.A. 200/2001 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi-II (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT) against the appellants herein (who were defendants 1 to 3, 5 and 6, respectively; hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants/defendants') and Anil Kumar Gupta (4th defendant) for the recovery of Rs. 1,38,81,986.66 with interest and costs.2. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the final order dated 29.4.2002, directing the appellants/defendants to pay the said amount with interest and costs, but dismissed the O.A. as against the 4th defendant. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT observed that the defendants, in spite of numerous opportunities, did not file the written statement and, therefore, they are deemed to have admitted the averments in the O.A. and held that the respondent-Bank is entitled to the Recovery Certificate, as indicated above. The appellants/defendants...
Tag this Judgment!Vimka Impex (P) Ltd. Vs. State Bank of Saurashtra and anr.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-03-2003
Reported in: IV(2004)BC70
1. The applicant/appellant has filed this appeal, which is yet to be registered, against the order dated 16.1.2003 by which it was ordered that if the appellant does not file the written statement by 23.1.2003 and also pay cost, the right to file the written statement will stand closed and the consequential Order dated 31.7.2003. Apparently, the appellant/defendant did not file the written statement within the stipulated time. The learned Counsel for the. appellant points out several orders passed between 16.1.2003 and 31.7.2003 to show that there was not only a talk of compromise but a compromise had, in fact, been arrived at between the appellant and the Bank by which the appellant had agreed to pay the amount due to the Bank in quarterly instalments of Rs. 3 lakhs each commencing from 23.1.2003. Subsequent instalments were to be paid on 23.4.2003, 23.7.2003 and 23.10.2003, The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the bona fides of the appellant are amply clear from the f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »