Drat Delhi Court July 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.
Sanjivani Agro Industries and Vs. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-29-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC122
1. The 1st respondent-The Bank of Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the "respondent-Bank") has filed Original Application No. 416/ 2000 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the "DRT") against the appellants herein, who are defendants 1 to 4 before the DRT (hereinafter referred to as the 2. The appellants/defendants raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the O.A. before the said DRT at Jaipur on the ground that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the O.A. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT after hearing both sides passed the impugned order dated 8.8.2001 holding that the said DRT at Jaipur has jurisdiction to decide the said O.A.3. Aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal. The respondent-Bank did not file any reply to this appeal, but, the learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank advanced arguments opposing the appeal.I have heard Counsel for both the sides perused the records of the appeal as well ...
Sitaram Singhania Vs. Icici Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC15
1. Office note indicates that the reply to Miscellaneous Application 86/2001 has not been filed. Mr. Rajesh Malhotra states that he has filed the reply to the main appeal.2. The learned Counsel for the applicant/appellant states that in view of the legal position as it stands today, notice to the respondents other than respondents 1 and 6 be dispensed with, inasmuch as the applicant/appellant have to seek appropriate remedy before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Notice to the other respondents is accordingly dispensed with.3. I have heard the Counsel for the applicant/appellant and respondents 1 and 6.4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/appellant states that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that no permission was necessary from the Company Court for initiating proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. He contends that the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Court in a Division Bench judgment reported in Pennar Peterson Limited v. State Bank of Hyderabad and Ors., I (2002) BC 25 (DB)=2001 (...
Ram Prakash Vs. Bank of Baroda and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC137
1. First respondent-Bank of Baroda (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') filed O. A. 410/97 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') against (1) M/s. Design Shoppe, (2) Mr. Chandan Roy (proprietor of No. 1), and (3) Ram Prakash (appellant herein). There learned Presiding Officer of the DRT by the impugned final order dated 4.3.1999 directed the defendants to pay Rs. 40,16,733.99 with interest and costs. He also directed the sale of the mortgaged property.2. Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the appeal and also this application for. condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The respondent-Bank has filed a suitable reply opposing this application.3. I have heard the Counsels for both the sides, and persued the records.4. The impugned final order was passed on 4.3.1999, but the appeal against the same has been presented on 18.7.2002, i.e., more than three years after the final order. According to the appellant, the copy of the final orde...
The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Tara Plastic Industries and
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-2003
Reported in: II(2004)BC161
1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 5.2.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') in Appeal 35/2001, and an application under Section 26 read with Section 19(25) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer has permitted the judgment-debtors (respondents herein) to deposit the Recovery Certificate amount @ Rs. 75,000/- per month till 28.2.2002, and thereafter, @ Rs. 70,000/- per month. The learned Presiding Officer further directed that if the judgment-debtors commit default in payment of three instalments then the Bank (appellant herein) will be entitled to recover the entire amount of the Recovery Certificate in one go with interest and also to revive the recovery proceedings.Aggrieved, the plaintiff-Bank has preferred this appeal. The respondents/judgme...
Aristo Pulps and Papers Ltd. and Vs. the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. and an ...
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-04-2003
Reported in: II(2004)BC183
1. The Ist respondent-The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') filed Civil Suit O.S. 160/90 before the Civil Court at Kota (Rajasthan) against appellants 1 to 9 (who were defendants 1 to 9, and hereinafter referred to as appellants/defendants), and the 2nd respondent in the appeal (as 10th defendant) for the recovery of Rs. 73,62,654.15 with future interest.After the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') came into force, the said Suit was transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') and was taken on file as O.A.198/96. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the final order dated 10.10.2001, directing the issue of Recovery Certificate for recovery of Rs. 73,62,654/- with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of Suit till realisation payable by defendants 1 to 9 jointly and severally. He further directed issue of the Recovery Ce...
Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. State Bank of India
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-2003
Reported in: II(2004)BC51
1. Respondent-State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the respondent-Bank) filed Suit No. 2248/93 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against the four appellants (defendants 1 to 4) herein as also against Mrs. Rupam (as 5th defendant) for the recovery of Rs. 1,19,90,393.25 with interest and costs. Defendants 1 to 4 had also filed their written statement before the High Court. On 23.8.95, the Suit was ordered to be transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal in view of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 20.10.95. On 20.10.95, the matter was taken on file by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'), as O.A. 1070/95 and default notice was ordered to be issued to the Counsel for the defendants by Registered Post and ordinary process for 5.1.1996. On 5.1.1996 also, fresh default notice was ordered to be issued...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›