Drat Delhi Court October 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.
State Bank of India Vs. Vee Kay Oils (P) Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-28-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC224
1. Appellant-State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellant-Bank') has preferred this appeal against the order dated 4.7.2003 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') on Application No. 2902/2003 in O.A.415/2002, filed by the certificate-debtors for return of the original title deeds. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT ordered that the original title deeds be returned to the certificate-debtors, if the terms and conditions of the consent-decree have been complied with.2. Aggrieved, the appellant-Bank has preferred this appeal, and the 2nd respondent has filed a suitable reply opposing the same.3. I have heard the Counsel for both the sides, and perused the records.4. O.A. 415/2002 was filed by the appellant-Bank against defendants (1) M/s. Vee Kay Oils (P) Ltd., (2) Mr. Kamal Kishore Arora, (3) Mr. Kishan Chand Arora [since deceased, now represented by (a) Mr. Kamal Kishore Arora, (b) Mrs. Goldy Arora, (c) Mrs. Neen...
Sylvania Laxman Ltd. and ors. Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC244
1. Respondents 1 to 5 in this appeal, namely, Punjab National Bank, Canara Bank, State Bank of Patiala, Standard Chartered Bank, ICICI Bank (formely Bank of Madura Ltd.) (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') filed O.A. 218/97 against the appellants herein (who are defendants 1 to 4 in the O.A., and hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-defendants'). The 6th respondent herein-IFCI was the 5th defendant in the O.A. before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'). The claim in the O.A. is for the recovery of Rs. 10,06,82,207.69 with interest and costs. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, by the impugned order dated 28.9.2001 declined the request of the appellants-defendants to allow them to file the written statement, and also directed that the written statement, which has been filed without the permission and after the closing of the right of the appellants-defendants to file the written statement, be taken off the record. Aggrieve...
Makewell Polymers (P) Ltd. and Vs. Bank of India and anr.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-18-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC36
1. First respondent - Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') filed T.A. 137/2002 (initially O.A. 256/2001) against appellants (who are defendants 1 and 3 in the TA, and hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-defendants') and Girdhari Lal Arora, the 2nd defendant in the T.A., for the recovery of Rs. 1,12,00,237.59 with interest and costs. On 1.10.2002 reply to the T.A. on behalf of the defendants was filed, but the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') did not take the reply filed by the defendants on record, and directed the respondent Bank to file the affidavit (by way of evidence) in two weeks. The matter was ordered to be listed on 28.10.2002.2. In the meanwhile, on 18.10.2002, an application (IA 176/2002) on behalf of the defendants was filed to condone the delay in filing the written statement, and to take the same on record. This application came up for hearing on 21.10.2002 before ...
Himalaya Udyog and anr. Vs. Himachal Pradesh Financial
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC75
1. Heard arguments of Mr. H.C. Arora for the appellants and also the arguments of Mr. J.S. Attri for the respondent.The respondent-Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation filed suit before the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh against the appellants/defendants for the recovery of the money allegedly due to it on 18.4.1991. The same was subsequently transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur as O.A. 147/97. The learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur passed the ex parte final order dated 10.3.1999 for the recovery or Rs. 13,43,778.95 with costs and interest @14% per annum from 18.4.1991 till realisation from the appellants/defendants.2. The appellants/defendants filed the Miscellaneous Application 86/2000 for setting aside the above said ex parte order before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh (since the subject matter of the dispute fell within the jurisdiction of the DRT, Chandigarh, which was subsequently constituted). The learned Presiding ...
Madhu Bajaj Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC65
1. These two appeals have been filed against similar orders dated 18.11.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') dismissing an application each filed in O.A. 599/2000 and O.A. 600/2000 respectively for sending the loan-documents to the National Forensic Laboratory for comparison and report by the handwriting expert or by an independent handwriting expert. Since the points arising for consideration in both the appeals are the same, I am disposing of both the appeals by this common order.2. The respondent Oriental Bank of Commerce (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent Bank') filed O.A. 599/2000 before the DRT for the recovery of Rs. 50,64,667/- with interest and costs from the appellant, the proprietor of M/s. House of Travel. The respondent Bank has filed O.A. 600/2000 against the appellant for the Recovery of Rs. 38,54,590/- with interest and costs. The appellant has filed reply to each of the O.A...
Madho Singh Rathore Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-05-2004
Reported in: IV(2006)BC238
1. This is an application under Section 21 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking waiver of the deposit.2. First respondent-State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') filed Original Application 427/1996 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur(hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT' against the appellant (defendant No. 10 in the Original Application and hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-defendant') and others for the recovery of Rs. 65,35,632.09 with interest. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, by his order dated 20th August, 2002, passed the final order directing the appellant-defendant and others to pay the said amount c with interest and costs. Aggrieved, the appellant-defendant has preferred the appeal and this application under Section 21 of the Act seeking waiver of the amount to be deposited in terms of Section 21 of the Act. The respondent No. 1 Bank has filed a suitable reply opposing this appli...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›