Drat Delhi Court November 2004 Judgments

Anil Kumar Gupta and anr. Vs. Bank of Baroda

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2005)BC253

1. The respondent-Bank of Baroda (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent-bank") filed O. A. No. 363 of 2000 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the DRT"), against the appellants (defendants Nos. 2 and 1, respectively, in the O. A., and hereinafter referred to as "the appellants-defendants") and Mr. Satya Prakash Goel. The learned presiding officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal passed the final order dated October 21, 2002, for the recovery of Rs. 10,51,706 with interest and costs from defendants Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally. The appellants-defendants filed a miscellaneous application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal to set aside the order setting them ex parte on June 25, 2001, and the ex parte final order dated October 21, 2002. They also filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for excusing the delay, if any, in filing the above said application. The learned presiding officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, by the i...

Dabas Agro Industries and ors. Vs. the Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2005)BC249

1. Respondent-The Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Respondent-Bank') filed O.A. 43/99 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT") against the appellants (being defendants 1 to 5; and hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants-defendants') for the recovery of Rs. 19,57,068.26 with interest and costs. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, by order dated 13.7.2001, accordingly passed the final order. The appellants-defendants then filed an application before the DRT to set aside the said ex parte final order. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, while considering this application, observed that the appellant-2nd defendant-Mr. Ariyant Dabas along with the Counsel was present before the DRT on 23.4.99, and it is highly improbable that a lawyer would have appeared before the Court without being instructed by his clients. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT also observed that the appellants-defendants had not show...

Chandan Prabhakar Gadgil Vs. Allahabad Bank

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2005)BC214

1. Respondent-Allahabad Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank) filed O.A. 7/98 against Western India Industries Ltd. (1st defendant), Mr. Chander Prabhakar Gadgil (being 3rd defendant and the appellant herein; hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-defendant') and others before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'). The DRT passed the final order dated 6.3.2002. The appellant-defendant filed an application before the DRT to set aside the order setting him ex parte (date 23.8.2001) and the final order dated 6.3.2002. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT dismissed the said application by order dated 30.4.2002.2. Aggrieved, the appellant-defendant has preferred this appeal. The respondent-Bank has filed a suitable reply opposing the same.3. I have heard the Counsel for both the sides, and perused the records.4. The learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant contends that the appellant-3rd. defendant was formerly a director of...

Montari Industries Ltd. Vs. State Bank of Patiala

Court: DRAT Delhi

1. The State Bank of Patiala (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent-bank") has filed O. A. No. 31 of 2003 against the appellant-M/s. Montari Industries Limited (the first defendant, and hereinafter referred to as "the appellant-defendant") and others for the recovery of Rs. 17,47,21,665.73 with interest and costs before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the DRT"). The appellant-defendant filed an application under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "SICA"), read with rule 18 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, for stay of proceedings before the DRT in view of the pendency of the appeal before the AAIFR.In that application it was averred that the BIFR by order dated August 1, 1997, declared the appellant-defendant as a sick industrial unit, appointed an operating agency to work out a rehabilitation scheme, but by order dated January 9, 2003, directed that the ap...

Smt. Krishna and anr. Vs. Bank of Baroda

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2005)BC227

1. Miscellaneous Appeal 281/2002 has been filed by defendant 5 and 6 (namely, Smt. Krishna and Smt. Lalita and hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants-defendants 5 and 6') in O.A. 697/95 against the order dated 12.7.2002 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-Ill, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') dismissing their application to set aside the ex parte final order dated 30.10.2001.2. Miscellaneous Appeal 282/2002 has been filed by the 4th defendant (namely, Pritam Singh, and hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-4th defendant') against the order dated 19.7.2002 passed by the said DRT, Delhi dismissing his application also to set aside the same ex parte final order dated 30.10.2001.3. The learned Counsel for both the sides stated that the points that arise for consideration in both the appeals arc similar, and advanced same arguments in both the appeals. Therefore, I am disposing of both the Miscellaneous Appeals 281/2002 and 282/2002 by this common order.4. Respondent-...