Drat Delhi Court December 2004 Judgments

Sitaram Singhania Vs. Industrial Finance Corporation

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2005)BC259

1. The respondent-Industrial Finance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Corporation') has filed O.A. 194/98 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') against the appellant (2nd defendant in the O.A.; and hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant -defendant') and 10 others for the recovery of the money allegedly due to it from the appellant-defendant and the 1st defendant, and also for certain reliefs against the defendants 2 to 4 in the O.A. The appellant-defendant filed I.A. 48/2004 before the DRT for giving a direction to the respondent-Corporation to make discovery on oath and production of the documents as mentioned in paragraph 12 of that application. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, by the impugned order dated 8.6.2004, allowed the said application in part directing the respondent-Corporation to produce the documents detailed in sub-paras (a), (d), (e) and (g) of para 12 of the said application, and re...

indusind Bank Ltd. Vs. Deva Tools and Forgings

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2005)BC97

1. These are appeals arising from the orders of the Debts Recovery Tribunal either granting stay of further proceedings to be taken by the Banks/financial institutions concerned, or refusing to slay such proceedings to be taken in pursuance of a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Securitisation Act').2. M/s. Krisha & Co. and others had filed Miscellaneous Appeal 272/2002 on the file of this Tribunal against Indian Overseas Bank. They had also filed Miscellaneous Application for stay. In that appeal and the application I had permitted the Secretary of the DRAT Bar Association to publish notices in the Notice Boards of the DRAT and DRT Bar Associations, Delhi informing that any Counsel who is desirous of advancing arguments and assisting this Tribunal regarding the questions raised in that appeal, including the question whether the Banks and financial ...

R.G. Joshi Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2005)BC195

1. First respondent State Bank of Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent Bank') has filed O.A. 190/95 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') against the appellant (7th defendant in the O.A.; and hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') and seven others for the recovery of the money allegedly due to it. The appellant filed the I.A. 532/2004 before the DRT for summoning Mr. Syed Sarfraz Ahmad, the Hand Writing Expert for giving evidence pertaining to his report dated 8.9.2003. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT rejected the application by the impugned order dated 27.4.2004 observing that the evidentiary value of the report will be judged at the time of the final arguments, and that there was no necessity for calling the Hand Writing Expert to prove his report as it is simply an opinion of the expert.2. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal. The respondent has filed a suitable reply opposing the appeal, to which...

T.R.S. Goel Vs. Bank of India and anr.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2005)BC261

1. First respondent-Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') filed Suit No. 818/76 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against the appellant (2nd defendant in the suit; and hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-defendant') and others. After the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 came into force, the said suit was transferred to the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT), and was taken on its file as O.A. 102/97. The DRT passed the ex pane final order on 12.10.98. The appellant-defendant filed an application to set aside the ex parte final order as against him. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT rejected the said application in limine by the impugned order dated 8.5.2002. Aggrieved, the appellant-defendant has preferred this appeal, and the respondent-Bank has filed a reply opposing the same.2. The appellant-defendant has also filed Miscellaneous Application 502/2002 for perm...

S.C. Chaturvedi and anr. Vs. Industrial Finance Corporation

Court: DRAT Delhi

1. Respondents have filed Original Application No. 314/98 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi -(hereinafter referred to as 'the D.R.T.') against the appellants for an order directing the appellants to pay Rs. 1,39,37,688.02 with interest to the respondent No.1; to pay Rs. 94,86,867.05 with interest to the respondent No.2; to pay Rs. 1,44,34,000/- with interest to the respondent No.3; and also to pay the costs.2. The appellants filed an application before the D.R.T. under Order VII, Rule 11 of the C.P.C. to reject the Original Application on the ground that it is barred by limitation, urging that the appellants allegedly executed a deed of guarantee on 26th June, 1985 with regard to the loan allegedly disbursed to Agra Construction Company Ltd., that the said company committed default in repayment of the principal amount and the interest, that a notice dated 16th May, 1989 was issued to the said company calling upon the same to repay the amount with interest, but the company fail...

Sudhir Kumar Khurana Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: II(2005)BC9

1. First respondent Punjab & Sind Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent Bank') filed O.A. 180/98 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT) against the appellant herein (3rd defendant in the O.A.; and hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate-defendant') and three others. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the ex parte final order dated 1.5.2002. The appellant-defendant filed an application dated 21.11.2002 before the DRT to set aside the ex parte final order passed against him. The appellant-defendant also filed an application to condone the delay in filing the above said application. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, by the impugned order dated 25.2.2003, dismissed the application for setting aside the ex parte final order.2. Aggrieved, the appellant-defendant has preferred this appeal to set aside the order dated 25.2.2003. The respondent Bank has filed a suitable reply opposing the appeal, to which the appell...

Naresh Kochhar Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: II(2005)BC1

1. Respondent Punjab and Sind Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent Bank') filed O.A. 66/99 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') against appellant (2nd defendant in the O.A.; and hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant defendant'). The appellant defendant filed an application (Miscellaneous Application 646/2004) before the DRT requesting the DRT to direct the respondent Bank to file the recast statement of accounts giving certain particulars as mentioned in the said application. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, by the impugned order dated 25.5.2004, dismissed the said application observing that the application has been filed by the defendant stating that the Bank has not filed the complete statement of accounts, that there is no need to issue any notice of this application to the respondent Bank since the case was fixed on that date for passing the final order. So observing, the DRT rejected the said application.2. Aggr...

Canara Bank Vs. Laxmi Food Industries and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2005)BC209

1. Appellant-Canara Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-Bank') has filed O.A. 241/1999 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') against respondents 1 to 3, 5, 6 and another for the recovery of the money allegedly due to it. The appellant-Bank filed I.A. 2/2000 before the DRT with the prayers to appoint a Receiver to take possession of the hypothecated plant and machinery, the details of which have been given in para 5(vii) of the O.A., to appoint a Commissioner for the preparation of inventory of the hypothecated stocks, plant and machinery lying at the office of the 1st defendant at 1-5 and 1-6, Surajpur Industrial Area, Site-C, Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., and to restrain the 7th respondent herein, namely, Small Industries Development Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the SIDBI') from selling the plant and machinery, which are hypothecated with the appellant-Bank, the details of which have been given in...

Ravinder Singh Vs. Syndicate Bank

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2005)BC180

1. Respondent Syndicate Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent Bank') filed O.A. 482/2000 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (here in after referred to as 'the DRT') against the appellant herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant defendant'), and the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the ex parte final order dated 25.4.2003 against the appellant defendant for the recovery of the amount due to the respondent Bank. The appellant defendant filed the Miscellaneous Application 24/2003 for setting aside the ex parte final order, but the said application was dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT by the impugned order dated 28.10.2003.2. Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal, and the respondent Bank has filed a suitable reply opposing the appeal. The appellant has also filed a rejoinder.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 appe...

Prashant India Ltd. and ors. Vs. Indian Renewal Energy

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: I(2005)BC93

1. Respondent-Indian Renewal Energy Development Agency Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Respondent herein') filed O.A. 16/2001 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') against the appellants (being defendants 1 to 6, hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellants-defendants') for the recovery of Rs. 3,66,59,941/- with interest and costs. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, by the impugned final order dated 5.2.2002, accordingly directed the appellants-defendants to pay the said amount jointly and severally with interest and costs. Aggrieved, the appellants-defendants have preferred the appeal, and this application under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking waiver of the deposit to be made in terms of the said Section 21 urging that the 1st appellant-defendant has been sick since 1998, and its financial resources are too weak to deposit 75% of...