Drat Delhi Court March 2003 Judgments
Haryana Petro Chemicals Ltd. and Vs. Industrial Investment Bank of
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: II(2004)BC81
1. This is an appeal by defendants 1 and 5 (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants/defendants') in O.A. 94/2001 filed by the 1st respondent-Industrial Investment Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the respondent-Bank) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the DRT) for the recovery of Rs. 1,37,97,204/- with subsequent interest and costs.2. On 25.4.2001, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT directed issue of show-cause notices on the O.A. to the defendants and also granted an ad interim ex pane injunction restraining the appellant/1st defendant and its Directors from selling, transferring, alienating or otherwise dealing with or disposing of the mortgaged immovable properties of the 1st defendant company with all buildings, structures, plants and machinery.3. The 1st respondent-Bank m(SIC)ed an application and LA. 296/2001 in September, 2000, stating, among other things, that consortium loan granted to the appellant/1st defendant was Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Motia Rani and ors. Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC170
1. The appellants herein were defendants 5, 2 and 6 respectively in O.A. 836/95 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT). The O.A. was originally a civil suit before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, and was subsequently transferred to the DRT after the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') came into force. The suit was filed by New Bank of India which has subsequently amalgamated with the respondent-Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank').2. On 17.7.1997, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the final order against the appellants/defendants and others. The appellants/defendants filed an application on 28.8.2000 before the DRT for setting aside the ex parte final order. This application was considered and dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT holding that the said application was filed beyond the period of limitation, b...
Tag this Judgment!P.L. Goyal and anr. Vs. Indian Overseas Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC142
1. The appellants are defendants 3 and 4 in O.A. 1053/95 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') filed by the 1st respondent-Indian Overseas Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') against the appellants and others for the recovery. By order dated 14.5.2002, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT rejected the request of the appellants to direct the respondent-Bank to furnish them the copies of the documents produced by the respondent-Bank. However, on the request for permitting the inspection of these documents, the learned Presiding Officer directed that the appellants may apply before the Registry for the said purpose.The appellants/defendants filed an application for review of this order, and that was also dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT by his order dated 9.8.2002. Aggrieved, the appellants have approached this Tribunal with this appeal for setting aside the above said orders and for direction to th...
Tag this Judgment!S.S.L. (India) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Uco Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2003
Reported in: I(2005)BC147
1. This is an application under Section 20(3) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act') for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal has been presented against the order dated 6.7.2001 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-11, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'), declining the prayer of the applicants/appellant (hereinafter referred to as appellants/defendants) to set said the order dated 18.2.1998 setting them ex parte and the final order dated 27.8.1998 passed in O.A. 418/97. The appeal has been presented on 23.11.2001, apparently after 45 days prescribed by this section. The respondent-Bank has filed suitable reply opposing this application.2. I have heard the Counsel for both the sides, and perused the records.3. As is seen from the impugned order, the appellants/defendants were set exparte on 18.2.1998, and the final order was passed on 27.8.1998.The impugned...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›