Drat Delhi Court January 2004 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.
Union Bank of India Vs. Garden Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-14-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC164
1. Appellant-Union Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-Bank') filed O.A. 371/98 against 6 defendants who are respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant Nos. 1 to 6') for the recovery of Rs. 88,56,535.16 with interest thereon @ 17.34% per annum with quarterly rest's from the date of O.A. till the recovery of the amount. The learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') by his final order dated 26th July, 2001 ordered that the appellant-Bank is entitled to recover this amount from defendant Nos.1,4, 5 and 6 with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the O.A. He held that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are not responsible for this amount. Aggrieved, the appellant-Bank has approached this Tribunal with this appeal with a prayer for directing all the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 to pay the amount with interest @ 17.34% per annum with quarterly rests from the date of O.A. till realisation...
M.L. Agarwal Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC79
1. Heard Counsel for the appellant. The appellant has approached this Tribunal with this Miscellaneous Appeal against the impugned order dated 3rd April, 2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the DRT"), declining the request of the appellant to be made a party to O.A. 103/2002 pending before the DRT.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has purchased the property in question on 28th January, 2000, which was subsequently allegedly mortgaged in favour of the 1st respondent-Bank on 11th March, 2000. According to the appellant, he has got in his favour, the agreement to sell, receipt for payment of money, Will, Power of Attorney and Special Power of Attorney to show that he is a purchaser. He also claims that the appellant has been handed over the possession of the property also. The learned Counsel for the appellant points out that the 1st respondent-Bank has obtained an...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›