Drat Delhi Court May 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.
Mrs. Shagufta Zahid and ors. Vs. Central Bank of India
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: May-24-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC33
1. Respondent-Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as "respondent-Bank") has obtained the final order dated 27th December, 2001 against the appellants herein (as defendant Nos. 2 to 4, hereinafter referred to as "appellants-defendants") and M/s. Hibba Exports, (as 1st defendant) for a sum of Rs. 10,32,972/- with interest and cost.2. The appellants-defendants filed an application under Rule 66 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 before the Recovery Officer attached to the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as "DRT"), requesting the Recovery Officer to postpone the sale of the property for about two months to enable the certificate debtors to raise the balance of the amount under the Certificate.3. The appellants-defendants urged in that application that they have been served with the notice for drawing up the proclamation for sale and settling the terms of the sale of the property, whereas, they have given a proposal to the responden...
S.S.L. and ors. Vs. Uco Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: May-18-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC237
1. Respondent-UCO Bank (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent-Bank") filed O.A. 418/1997 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the DRT") against the appellants herein (hereinafter referred to as "the appellants-defendants") for the recovery of Rs. 3,56,93,045.03 with interest and costs. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT by his order dated 27.8.1998, passed the exparte final order for the above said amount with interest and costs.2. The appellants-defendants filed an application dated 20.10.1998 for setting aside the above said ex parte final order. They urged, among other things, that in the last week of September, 1998 the appellants-defendants, through 2nd appellant-defendant, came to know from the office of the respondent-Bank about these proceedings, on which they applied for the certified copy of the order which was delivered to them on 13.10.1998. They have also stated that on or about 28.9.1998, the appellants-defendants came to k...
Seema Textiles and ors. Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: May-17-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC1
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 6th September, 2001 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'), dismissing the application (I.A. 1/2000) filed by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants-defendants') to dismiss the O.A. as not maintainable in view of Rule 10 of Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').2. The respondent-Punjab & Sind Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank) filed O.A. 269/1998 against the appellants-defendants for the recovery of Rs. 17,10,744.42 with interest and costs. The respondent-Bank prayed for issuance of the recovery certificate against the appellants-defendants jointly and severally, and also for the sale of the mortgaged property, hypothecated stocks etc.3. The appellants-defendants filed an I.A. 1/2000 before the DRT, as stated above, for dismissal of the O.A. The appellants-defendants urged in that appli...
T.R.S. Goel (Huf) Vs. Union Bank of India and anr.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC63
1. In pursuance of the Final Order/Recovery Certificate issued in O.A.414/95 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi (thereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') in favour of the 1st respondent-Union Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent-Bank') against M/s. Logic Systems Pvt. Ltd. and Others, including Mr. T.R.S. Goel, the Recovery Officer attached and proclaimed for sale the property-Door No. 104, Defence Colony, New Delhi (with which we are concerned in this appeal) and another property.2. Aggrieved, the appellant- T.R.S. Goel (HUF) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellant/Objector') filed its objections before the Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi, urging that the Hindu Undivided Family-T.R.S.Goel consists of Mr. T.R.S. Goel, his wife-Mrs. Shiromani Goel, his sons- Mr. Shantanu Goel and Mr. Himanshu Goel, and that the appellant/objector received the notice for attachment and sale proclamation, dated 16th August, 2001, pasted on the front side of the property in question....
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›