Drat Delhi Court February 2003 Judgments
Malpani Marbles and Granites Pvt. Vs. Allahabad Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC49
1. The appellants are the defendants in O.A. 545/96 filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') for the recovery of Rs. 18,28,773/- with subsequent interest and costs.The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the final order dated 26.4.2001 for the recovery of the above said sum with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application, namely, 3.1.1995 till the recovery with costs from defendants 1, 3 and 4 jointly and severally.2. The 2nd defendant had died, and his legal representatives are defendants 2/1, 2/2, 2/3 and 3 to 11 whose liability was limited to the extent of the money realised by the sale of Property No. 10, Film Colony, S.M.S Highway, Jaipur as co-owners and legal heirs of the 2nd defendant.3. The respondent/plaintiff-Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'Respondent -Bank') was also held entitled to recover the money by selling the property of the 1st defendant-company in Khasra No. 377, Village Borawar, District Nagpur, R...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Chand Nagpal and anr. Vs. Corporation Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: II(2004)BC1
1. Appellants are defendants 2 and 1 in O.A. 174/97 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'). The 1st respondent-plaintiff-Corporation Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') filed the said O.A. for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 44,19,991/- with interest thereon @ 21.75% per annum against the defendants/appellants and defendants 3 and 4. 2nd appellant is the company, of which the 1st appellant and defendants 3 and 4 are stated to be the Directors. The respondent-Bank also prayed that the 5th defendant should pay a part of this amount. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, by his ex parte final order dated 7.12.2000 directed the defendants 1 to 4 to jointly pay the abovesaid sum with interest and costs. The 5th defendant was also saddled with the liability to pay the part of the abovesaid amount.2. Aggrieved, an application for setting aside the ex parte final order was filed. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation ...
Tag this Judgment!Rattan Kumar JaIn and anr. Vs. Canara Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC116
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 8.4.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') dismissing the application filed by the appellants herein to set aside the ex parte final order passed on 22.10.2001 in O.A.312/98. Aggrieved, the appellants, who are defendants 4 and 5 in the O.A, have filed this appeal. The respondent-Bank has filed a suitable reply opposing this appeal.2. I have heard the Counsels for both the sides, and perused the records.3. The respondent/plaintiff-Bank filed O.A. 312/98 against the appellants (who are defendants 4 and 5) and three others, and the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT observed in his final order that the defendants have been served by publication of the notice in the newspaper 'Statesman', but despite service, the defendants did not appear, and, therefore, were proceeded ex parte. Accordingly, he passed the ex parte final order against the appellants and others for Rs. 66,83,928/...
Tag this Judgment!Hitaishi Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Canara Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC178
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 26.4.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') dismissing the application filed by the appellants herein to set aside the ex parte final order passed on 22.10.2001 in O.A.312/98. Aggrieved, the appellants, who are defendants 1 to 3 in the O.A., have filed this appeal. The respondent Bank has filed a suitable reply opposing this appeal.2. I have heard the Counsels for both the sides, and perused the records.3. The respondent/plaintiff Bank filed O.A. 312/98 against the appellants (who are defendants 1 to 3) and two others, and the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT observed in his final order that the defendants have been served by publication of the notice in the newspaper 'Stateman', but despite service, the defendants did not appear and, therefore, were proceeded ex parte. Accordingly, he passed the ex parte final order against the appellants and others for Rs. 66,83,928/- wi...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Marbles and Stones and ors. Vs. Central Bank of India
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC92
1. The appellants are the defendants in C.A. 220/ 96 pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT').The respondent Bank has filed the claim against the appellants/defendants for the recovery of about Rs. 19 lakhs and odd.The appellants/defendants have filed written statement denying the execution of Exhibits A/15 and A/16, the balance confirmation letters.According to them, the signatures and the seal found therein are forged. The appellants/defendants filed a miscellaneous application dated 10.10.2001 praying that Exhibits A/15 and A/16 be sent for comparison with the admitted documents Exhibit A/8 and report by the Government Examiner of the Questioned Documents, Railway Board Building, Shimla or another institution. This application was opposed by the respondent-Bank, and the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT by the impugned order dated 25.10.2001 dismissed the said application observing that the matter is very old, that on earlier occa...
Tag this Judgment!Manjit Kumar Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-2003
Reported in: III(2004)BC84
1. This is an application under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act") for waiver of the deposit to be made in terms of this section.2. Final order dated 7.1.2002 was passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi-I (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') ordering the appellants/defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 9,19,01,443/- to the respondent/plaintiff-Bank with costs, pendente lite and future 'interest at 18.36% per annum with quarterly rests.3. The application of the appellants/defendants for recalling/reviewing the abovesaid order, and for granting them time to file written statement was also dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT by his order dated 16.1.2002. Aggrieved by both the orders, the appellants/defendants have filed the appeal. They had also filed Miscellaneous Application 82/2002 under Section 21 of the Act for waiver of the deposit. The appellants...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›