Drat Delhi Court April 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
O.P. Arora Vs. Syndicate Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC102
1. The 1st respondent-Syndicate Bank (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent-Bank') filed O.A. 33/98 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') against, (1) M/s. VSA Ledermode; (2) Mr. O.P. Arora (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant/2nd defendant'); and (3) Mr. Vishal Arora for the recovery of Rs. 4,19,80,709/- with subsequent interest and costs jointly and severally from them. The respondent-Bank also prayed that in the event of their failure to pay the amount, the hypothecated goods, machinery and the mortgaged property be sold for realisation of the amount. The respondent-Bank further prayed for the attachment before judgment of the mortgaged property. According to the respondent-Bank, the 1st defendant is a firm, of which defendants 2 and 3 are partners, engaged in the business of import and export of readymade leather garments, and for that business the respondent-Bank granted the loan facilities as indicated in the O.A., for which ...
Madan Stores (P.) Ltd. Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC134
1. Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent-Bank") has filed O.A. 62/2002 for the recovery of money from appellant-Madan Stores (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant-defendant") and others. The said O.A. is pending before the DRT-III Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as "the DRT").2. Appellant-defendant filed LA. 249/2002 before the DRT with a prayer to adjourn the proceedings awaiting the orders/award of the Arbitral Tribunal in the matter of arbitration between appellant-defendant and Indian Petrochemicals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "IPCL").This request of the appellant-defendant was declined by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT observing that if some arbitration proceeding is pending between the appellant-defendant and IPCL relating to some contract, that has nothing to do with this O.A., and, therefore, the adjournment cannot be granted.3. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-defendant has preferred this appeal. The respondent-Bank, who...
O.P. Aggarwal Vs. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC60
1. The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1st respondent-Bank) filed O.A. 454/1999 against (1) Ganpati Combines Ltd., (2) Sh. O.P. Aggarwal (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-defendant') and (3) Ganpati Exports Ltd., for the recovery of Rs. 9,80,81,396/- with interest and costs before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'DRT'). The learned Presiding Officer of DRT accordingly passed a common ex parte final order dated 22.1.2001 in O.A. No. 454/1999 as well as in O.A. No.452/1999 and 453/1999.2. Appellant-defendant who is the 2nd defendant in the above O.A. filed on 16.10.2001, a miscellaneous application under Section 22(2)(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for setting aside the above said ex parte final order. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, by the impugned order dated 17.10.2001, dismissed the said miscellaneous application observing...
Sterling Computers Limited Vs. Corporation Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC97
1. Corporation Bank (hereinbefore referred to as 'the 1st respondent-Bank') filed Suit No. 2731/1993 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against (1) M/s. United Data Base (India) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the UDP'); (2) M/s. United India Periodicals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the UIP')"; (3) T.P.Ahmed Ali; (4) M/s. Sterling Computers Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-Sterling Computers); (5) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the MTNL'); (6) Central Bank of India; (7) Bank of Baroda; and (8) Bank of India. The suit was filed for the recovery of Rs. 7,53,09,020.83 with interest @ 21% per annum, out of which the liability of the appellant-Sterling Computers was limited to Rs. 4,09,76,270/- with interest as mentioned above. 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 transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Delhi (hereinafte...
Sh. Dinesh Bhakko and anr. Vs. Andhra Bank and anr.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-2003
Reported in: III(2005)BC231
1. The appellants are defendants 2 and 1 respectively in O.A. 129/96 filed by the 1st respondcnt-Andhra Bank (hereinafter referred to as the respondent Bank) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'DRT') against the appellants and the 2nd respondent herein. The appellants filed their interlocutory applications, namely I.A. 1/2000 for taking an additional affidavit by way of evidence; I.A. 2/2000 for taking cognizance of the counter-claim made by the defendants 1 and 2 in their written statement, and to allow them to lead evidence; and I.A. 3/2000 for summoning Mr. Suresh, the then Credit Manager and Mr. Varaprasad, the then Foreign Exchange Officer of the respondent-Bank for examination as witnesses in order to establish their counter-claim and their defence. All these three applications were disposed of by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT by his common order dated 24.1.2002.I. A. 1/2000 was allowed, and the additional affidavit filed was taken...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›