Drat Delhi Court December 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.
Shri Gautam Bhalla Vs. the Recovery Officer (i), Drt and
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-30-2003
Reported in: III(2004)BC207
1. This is a purported application under Section 17A of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1993') seeking exercise of the powers of this Tribunal under the above said section.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and perused the records available with this application.3. The learned Counsel for the applicant contends that the Recovery Officer, in execution proceedings i.e., in R.C. No. 1165/2002, DRT, (Chandigarh), has attached the property belonging to the applicant herein, He contends that the applicant is the owner of the property, but he is neither the principal borrower, nor a guarantor, or a certified debtor, learned Counsel for the applicant, therefore, contends that the property in question is not liable to be attached at all, for the recovery of the amount due in pursuance of the abovesaid Recovery Certificate. He contends that the applicant had leased out the property to M/s. Ayan Co...
Ngc Rubber (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union Bank of India
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-30-2003
Reported in: III(2004)BC189
Aggrieved by the order dated 23.9.2003, declining the request of the appellants, who were defendants in the. O.A. 129/2002 of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'), to recall the final order dated 2.4.2003, the appellants/defendants have approached this Tribunal with this appeal. According to the appellants/defendants, they had engaged a Counsel, but the Counsel never informed them either of the dates or of the fact that the appellants/defendants had even to file a written statement to the O.A. The learned Counsel for the appellants/defendants contends that the appellants/defendants were not even aware of the passing of the final order also and the Counsel had not informed them even about it. The appellants/defendants claim that on 19.6.2003, the 2nd defendant received a telephone call from the Branch Manager of the respondent-Bank about the death of an employee, who was acquainted with the 2nd defendant, and it was at that time the Manager of the Bank...
Anil Kumar Bansal Vs. Central Bank of India
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-19-2003
Reported in: III(2004)BC205
1. Mr. Anand Aggarwal states that this appeal is directed against the order passed in LA. 379/2003 by DRT-I, Delhi on 1.10.2003. The same is recorded accordingly.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant points out even from the averments in the O.A. filed before the DRT by the respondent-Bank that even prior to the filing of the O.A., the Bank had issued notice under Section 13(2) of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 on 11.7.2002. By pointing out this fact, the learned Counsel for the appellant states that a Miscellaneous Application was moved before the DRT to dismiss the O.A.itself as not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Sub-section (10) of Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest, Act, 2002, which reads as under: "(10) Where dues of the secured creditor are not fully satisfied with the sale proceeds of the secured assets, the secu...
Tab India and ors. Vs. Indian Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-16-2003
Reported in: III(2004)BC116
1. Heard Counsel. This is an application for transfer of records of O.A. 372/98 decided by the DRT, Delhi on 25.1.2001, but presently with DRT-II, Delhi to DRT-III, Delhi. According to the learned Counsel for the applicants, two applications, namely, M.A. 65/2002 and M. A.76/2002, have been filed for setting aside the ex parte final order, and the original records are necessary. She points out that now the jurisdiction over the subject-matter of these applications has been transferred from DRT-II, Delhi to DRT-III, Delhi, and hence this application for transfer of the records.2. This Tribunal has, by Circular dated 4.6.2003, given the following directions to the Debts Recovery Tribunals: "(i) Prepare Recovery Certificate in terms of the final order, unless there is any stay by a Court against such preparation; and (ii) Send records in disposed of cases to the concerned Debts Recovery Tribunal if the jurisdiction with reference to the subject-matter of the O.A. has been subsequently ch...
Shri Pramod Aggarwal Vs. Canara Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2003
Reported in: IV(2004)BC230
1. Respondent-Canara Bank filed O.A. 40/99 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'). The DRT passed the final order on 22.5.2001 observing that the defendant/appellant was served by publication, but had not appeared before the DRT. The appellant, who is the only defendant, then filed a Miscellaneous Application before the DRT to set aside the ex parte final order. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, by the impugned order dated 27.11.2002, dismissed the said application. While doing so, the learned Presiding Officer observed that the appellant has been duly served, and the acknowledgement card for the same is on the record. He also observed that notice was also published in the newspaper. He, therefore, dismissed the application.3. I have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and perused the records of the appeal as well as of the DRT.4. First of all, the learned Counsel for the appellant points out that the addresses given in the O.A. are...
Chander Mohan Verma Vs. Indian Overseas Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2003
Reported in: III(2004)BC115
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 2.9.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi-I (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') in I.A. 352/2003 in O.A. 261/96.This application filed by the appellant/6th defendant before the DRT was to direct the respondent-Bank either to admit or deny the documents filed by the appellant/6th defendant as per the list attached with the application. The learned Counsel for the appellant/6th defendant contends that the very first document is a notice sent on behalf of the appellant/6th defendant cancelling/withdrawing the guarantee. He also contends that similar notices have been given and a reply has also been received. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant/6th defendant, these documents are essential for the decision of the O.A.The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT has stated that this application will be considered at the time of hearing the final arguments, since the O.A. has reached the s...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›