Drat Delhi Court June 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.
Marks Consolidated Business Ltd. Vs. Industrial Finance Corporation
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-30-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC17
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 18.9.2003 in LA. 446/2003 in Appeal 21/2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'), by which the learned Presiding Officer declined the request of the appellant herein to refund the sum of Rs. 25 lakhs stated to have been deposited by the appellant with the Recovery Officer.2. By the order dated 4.6.2003 passed in Appeal 21/2003 preferred by the 5th respondent, the Presiding Officer of the DRT set aside the sale in favour of the 8th respondent herein, and while doing so, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT also directed that the property be re-auctioned, and that the amount deposited not only by the appellant before him (5th respondent herein), but also the amount deposited by any of the respondents before him should be retained by the Recovery Officer till the property is sold in the re-auction.3. The appellant herein, through Basant Bansal, w...
Archirsha Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Industrial Finance Corporation
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-30-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC1
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 4.6.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'). The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, by the said order, allowed the appeal filed by the 4th respondent herein against the order passed by the Recovery Officer in R.C. 116/2001 on 17.4.2003.2. The Recovery Officer had, by his order dated 17.4.2003, dismissed the objections filed by the 4th respondent herein for setting aside the sale in favour of the appellant herein in respect of the property, namely, Plot No. Spl (A&C), RIICO Industrial Area, Bhiwadi. Distt Alwar, Rajasthan, measuring 74764 sq. metres together with all buildings, plant and machinery', fixtures, fittings, and hypothecated goods/assets, etc. (hereinafter refered to as 'the Property in question').3. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, by the impugned order dated 4.6.2003, while allowing the appeal, set aside the sale in favour of the ...
National Steel and Agro Vs. Industrial Finance Corporation
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-30-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC22
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 4.6.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') in Miscellaneous Appeal 21/2003.2. By order dated 4.6.2003 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal 21/2003, preferred by the appellant herein, the Presiding Officer of the DRT set aside the sale in favour of the 4th respondent herein, and while doing so the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT also directed that the property be re-auctioned, and that the sum of Rs. 5.85 crores deposited by the appellant should be retained by the Recovery Officer till the property is sold in re-auction.3. The appellant in this appeal is aggrieved only with that portion of the order whereby the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT directed that the sum of Rs. 5.85 crores deposited by the appellant herein before the Recovery Officer shall be retained by the Recovery Officer, and that after the auction sale the Recovery Officer wil...
Ram Niwas Mundra Vs. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-23-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC25
2. The learned Counsel for the appellant states that this appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 22.1.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') in O.A. 168/2001, by which the right of the appellant to file the written statement was closed without the appellant having been supplied with the copy of the paper book as contemplated under Rules 9 and 11 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993.3. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent states that the grievance of the appellant can be redressed today itself by supplying the copy of the paper book. Mr. Ashim Vachcher also states that even on the previous dates of hearing the 1st respondent was ready with the copy of the paper book to be supplied to the appellant. Today, in Court, Mr.Vachcher has handed over the copy of the paper book in O.A. 168/2001 to Mr. B.C. Parakh, the learned Counsel for the appellant. Therefore, the first grievance of the ap...
Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. Savico International and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-22-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC44
1. Appellant-Punjab and Sind Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-Bank') filed the Civil Suit for the recovery of Rs. 15,15,308.67 with pendente lite and future interest at 24.75% per annum with quarterly rests from date of suit till realisation and costs against the respondents herein (who are defendants 1 to 4 in the suit; and hereinafter referred to as "the defendants") before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalandhar. The same was subsequently transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') after the passing of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, and taken on the file of the DRT as O.A. 353/1996.2. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the impugned final order dated 19.5.2000 entitling the appellant-Bank to recover Rs. 3,60,119.62 with future interest @ 14.50%'per annum with quarterly rests from 1.2.1993 till realisation. He dismissed the rest of the claim.3. Aggrieved the appellant-B...
Kapil Kathpalia Vs. the Industrial Finance
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-22-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC56
1. This is an appeal against the impugned order dated 21.8.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') dismissing the application filed by the appellant, who is the 4th defendant in O. A. 233/98 (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant-defendant'), for permission to cross-examine the witnesses whose affidavits have been filed by way of evidence by the respondent-IFCI (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent').2. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT observed that the affidavits were filed in September, 2001, but, this application was filed at a belated stage, when the matter had been listed for final arguments on 22.8.2002. He also observed that the plea that blank documents were signed, does not raise any triable issue, and that the other plea that the claim of the respondent is barred by limitation has also to be judged from the documents. He further observed that the question whether the appellan...
Metro Polymers and ors. Vs. Indian Renewable Energy
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-17-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC48
1 This appeal has been filed by the defendants in O.A. 472/97 (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant-defendants") against the impugned order dated 28.4.2000 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the DRT") dismissing the application filed by the appellant-defendants to set aside the ex parte final order passed against them on 24.3.1998 in O.A. 472/97.2. The respondent-Indian Renewable Energy Development agency Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") filed the O.A. before the DRT for the recovery of Rs. 24,86,977 with interest and costs. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the ex parte final order on 24.3.1998 accordingly.3. On 30.11.1998 application to set aside the ex parte final order was filed on behalf of the appellant-defendants. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT after giving opportunity of hearing to both sides dismissed the said application by his order dated 28.4.2000. The ...
Atma Tube Limited Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-14-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC29
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 6.1.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT in O.A. 919/2000.The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT by this order, while granting three weeks' time to the defendants to settle the matter under the One Time Settlement scheme, observed that no further time will be granted for arguments, unless the defendants established their bona fides by depositing 25% of the amount of One Time Settlement proposal as per the Reserve Bank of India's Guidelines. He gave liberty to the defendants to quantify the amounts as per the Reserve Bank of India's Guidelines and deposit the same with respondent-Bank. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT also observed that all Miscellaneous Applications including the application for discovery and production of documents will be heard and decided at the time of final judgment and that if at the time of the final arguments these documents are required for the just and correct adjudicati...
L.T. Overseas Ltd. and ors. Vs. Standard Chartered Bank and anr.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-09-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC33
1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 6.2.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'), dismissing the application filed by the defendants 1 to 3 (applicants herein; hereinafter referred to as the appellant-defendants'), seeking leave of the DRT to cross-examine the respondent-Bank's witness Suraj Kalra.2. The 1st respondent - Standard Chartered Bank (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent-Bank") has filed O.A. 343/98 against the appellants (as defendants I to 3) and the 2nd respondent herein (as the 4th defendant) for (he recovery of Rs. 99,32,224.93 with interest and costs.3. The appellant-defendants have filed a written statement to the O.A.disputing their liability. The 4th defendant has also filed a written statement to the O.A.4. The appellant-defendants filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking leave of the DRT to cross-examine the respondent - Bank's witness Suraj Kalra, whose a...
Maya Prints and ors. Vs. Canara Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC38
1. This is appeal against the final order dated 16.1.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') in O.A. 615/95 filed by the respondent-Canara Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') against the appellants (who are defendants in the O.A., and hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-defendants'), and the orders passed on the application dated 7.2.2000 filed by the respondent-Bank for release of the amount realised by the sale of the hypothecated goods, 2. The O.A. is for the recovery of Rs. 35,44,357.73 with interest and costs from the appellant-defendants. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, by the impugned final order dated 16.1.2002, accordingly passed the final order for the recovery of the above said amount. He also directed the appropriation of the amount realised by the sale of the hypothecated goods. Aggrieved, the appellants have filed this appeal. The respondent-Bank has fi...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »