Drat Delhi Court August 2003 Judgments
Col. K.S. Malik and anr. Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-25-2003
Reported in: III(2004)BC233
1. First respondent-Oriented Bank of Commerce (hereinafter referred to as 'the Respondent - Bank') filed Suit No. 1098/2001 on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 5.4.2001 against seven defendants, namely, (1) M/s. Geetanjali Motors Pvt. Ltd., (2) Mr. S.S. Bedi, (3) Mrs. Moksh Bedi, (4) Col. K.S. Malik (one of the appellants herein) (5) Mr. Asha Ram, (6) Mrs. H. Malik (the other appellant herein), and (7) M/s. Richer Motors Ltd. for (1) the recovery of Rs. 4,50,395.72 with future interest till realisation against defendants 1 to 5 jointly and severally under the Cash Credit Hypothecation/Deferred Payment Guarantee/Co-acceptance Bills account; for a decree for the sale of two hypothecated Eicher Center vehicles mentioned in the plaint for realising the said amount; (2) for a decree for Rs. 11,28,613.02 with future interest jointly and severally against defendants 1 to 4, 6 and 7 under the cash-credit pledge account; (3) to direct the defendants 1 and 7 not to sell the 10 Eic...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Agarwal and ors. Vs. Bank of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-19-2003
Reported in: III(2004)BC222
1. Respondent-Bank of Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Respondent Bank') filed O.A. 427/98 against appellants 1 and 2 (defendant 2 and 3, and hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellant/defendants') and respondents 2 to 6 herein (as defendants 1 and 4 to 7 respectively) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT). The respondent - Bank filed a miscellaneous application under Section 19 (13)(A) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the attachment of the property of the 3rd defendant (2nd appellant herein), bearing No. D-34, Basant Vihar, Gandhi Nagar, Bheelwara. Second appellant/3rd defendant filed a reply opposing this application urging, among other things, that the said property does not belong to her, that the sale letter relied upon by the respondent-Bank is not genuine, and cannot be construed as a sale deed.2. This application along with certain other appl...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Jhakar Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2003
Reported in: III(2004)BC209
1. First respondent-State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') filed O.A. 287/96 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT") against (1) M/s. B.R. Foods Limited (2nd respondent herein), (2) Mr. Sunil Jhakar (appellant herein, and hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellant/2nd defendant'), and (3) Mrs. Karuna Sharma (3rd respondent herein) for the recovery of Rs. 2,79,61,715.32 with interest and costs.On 11.3.97, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the ex parte final order as prayed for by the respondent-Bank. The appellant/2nd defendant and the Ist defendant-company filed an application on 28.6.99 to set aside the said ex parte final order. But, the said application was dismissed for default on 17.5.2001 due to their absence. Thereafter, the appellant/2nd defendant filed another Miscellaneous Application dated 28/29.5.2001 for restoration of the above said application which was also dismis...
Tag this Judgment!Heritage Cables Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: IV(2004)BC73
1. Heard Counsel. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 24.4.2003 passed in I.A. 98 of 2003, declining the request of the appellants to have certain documents compared by the Handwriting Expert, so that the report can be received for the purposes of appreciating the plea taken by the appellants/defendants 2 to 4 that the said documents are forged. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT has declined the request on the ground that the application does not contain all the materials necessary, especially the details of documents in which, the admitted signatures of the appellants/ defendants 2 to 4 are found. The learned Presiding Officer has also observed that it has not been made clear as to whose signatures have been forged except stating that the documents have been forged. The learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the details as to the documents which are forged are mentioned in the written statement. He also contends that the signatures of defendants 2 to 4 ha...
Tag this Judgment!Rajat Kanwar Vs. Canara Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: III(2004)BC259
1. Respondent-Canara Bank filed O.A. 180/2001 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') against the appellant-Rajat Kanwar (as 5th defendant and hereinafter referred to as 'appellant/5th defendant), and four other defendants for the recovery of Rs. 75,93,865.19 with interest and costs. On 19.8.2002, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the final order as prayed for by the respondent-Bank. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/5th defendant has preferred this appeal, and also this application under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for waiving the pre-deposit, and to entertain the appeal.2. The respondent-Bank has filed a suitable reply opposing this application. The appellant/5th defendant has also filed an additional affidavit.3. I have heard the Counsels for both the sides, and perused the records.4. The learned Counsel for the appellant/5th d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›