Drat Delhi Court September 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Monica Electronics Ltd. Vs. the Federal Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-2003
Reported in: IV(2004)BC76
Mr. Jayant Nath states that the certified copy of the impugned order has been made available now, and he may be permitted to file the same today itself. Let him file the certified copy of the impugned order into the Registry today itself. Ordered accordingly.This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.7.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT-I, Delhi declining the request/application made by the appellants herein to direct the respondent-Bank to furnish them certain documents referred to in the O.A. itself.2. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that in view of Rule 9 of Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (herein after referred to as the 1993 Rules), the respondent-Bank has to produce all the documents, not only relied upon, but also referred to in the O.A, He also points out that as per the averments in the O.A., the principal debtor had approached the Bank in 1994, and a Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 3 crores was disbursed on 8.7.1994, that the ...
A.K. Verma Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2003
Reported in: III(2004)BC253
2. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 10.7.2000 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') declining the request of the appellant (who was 3rd defendant before the DRT in O.A. 45/95) to set aside the ex parte final order passed on 18.6.98.3. The contention of the appellant/3rd defendant is that he was not served with the summons/notice in the O.A. but he came to know of the proceedings in the O.A. on 15.12.99 when he went to the respondent-Bank and met an official of the Bank, who showed him the copy of the ex parte final order. The learned Counsel for the appellanl/3rd defendant contends that the appellant/3rd defendant had filed the application dated 11.1.2000 i.e., within 30 days from the date of knowledge, before the DRT to set aside the ex parte final order. The learned Counsel for the appellant/3rd defendant also contends that the appellant/ 3rd defendant has specifically pleaded in ...
Saraf Fabrics Ltd. and ors. Vs. Indian Overseas Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2003
Reported in: IV(2004)BC74
1. Notice of this appeal. Mr. P.C. Jain states that notice may be issued only to the Ist respondent-Bank since, according to him, the other respondent is a proforma party. He, therefore, requests that notice of the appeal to the other respondent be dispensed with. Ordered accordingly.2. Mr. A.P. Mukundan takes notice of the appeal on behalf of the Ist respondent-Bank and states that the reply to the appeal is already on record. Mr. P.C. Jain states that he has already filed the rejoinder.Both sides are ready to advance arguments in the appeal.3. I have the learned Counsels for both the sides and also perused the records.4. This is an appeal against the order dated 25.9.2001 by which the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT directed the final order to be amended by adding the following: "It has been agreed besides the above that the interest is payable, after adjustment of the amount paid by the respondents/defendants w.e.f. May, 2000 onwards towards the principal (i.e. Rs. 3.00 crores...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›