Drat Delhi Court September 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.
Shri Krishan Kumar Soni and anr. Vs. the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC100
1. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 11.8.2003 permilting the respondent Bank to' exhibit certain documents. The learned Counsel for the appellants points out that the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT did not permit the appellants to file any document by way of evidence by his Order dated 9.5.2003, whereas the respondent Bank has now been permitted to exhibit documents. He also contends that even the original documents were not brought into evidence, though they were produced and taken away. He contends that the originals should have been placed on record by way of evidence.2. The appellants cannot object to the reception of the documents by way of evidence on the ground that the appellants' application for reception of documents by way of evidence was dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT. If the interest of justice required, then the evidence should be allowed to be placed on record, and there can be nothing wrong in permitting the documents to be p...
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. G.P. Goyal and anr.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC49
1. The appellant-State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant-bank") filed the O. A. (initially numbered as O.A. No. 473 of 1996) against the first respondent (the fourth defendant in the O. A., and hereinafter referred to as "the respondent-defendant"), the second respondent herein (the first defendant in the O. A., and hereinafter referred to as "the respondent-company") and others for the recovery of Rs. 84,95,730 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the DRT").2. Defendants Nos. 5, 8 and 9 contested the O. A., and the rest of the defendants remained ex parte. The learned presiding officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, by the order dated March 18, 1997, held that the appellant-bank is entitled to recover Rs. 84,95,730 from defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 with interest and costs. He also held that out of this amount the appellant-bank is entitled to recover Rs. 4,15,862.04 from the respondent-defendant with interest ...
Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Industrial Finance Corporation
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-16-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC46
1. The appellant-defendant's oral request to file the written statement (o the amended O.A was declined by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') by the impugned order dated 29.10.2002. Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the appeal and this application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The respondent has filed a suitable reply opposing the application.2. I have heard the Counsel for both the sides, and perused the records.3. The impugned order was passed on 29.10.2002, and the appeal has been presented on 3.2.2003. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the application for certified copy of the impugned order was made on 22.11.2002, and that the said copy was prepared by the DRT on 18.12.2002. He also contends that the case file was not traceable in the office of the erstwhile Counsel for the appellant, and that the appellant had also to apply for the certified copy of the order dated 1...
Chander Mohan Mehra Vs. Indian Overseas Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC41
1. The appeal is directed against the order dated 8.7.2004 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal I, Delhi dismissing I.A. 776/2004 filed by the appellant herein for initiating proceedings against the Chairman and Managing Director, General Manager and other officers of the respondent-Bank under Section 340, Cr.P.C. on the ground that the respondent-Bank has filed the reply making false averments. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that it is not necessary that the offence should have been proved, and that it is sufficient that if it appears to the Court that an offence as contemplated under Section 340, Cr.P.C. has been committed, to take action. He, therefore, contends that the application could not have been rejected on the ground that action could be taken under Section 340, Cr.P.C. only after passing of the final orders.2. The Learned Counsel for the appellant also refers to the provisions of Section 340, Cr.P.C. It is clear from the reading of the provisions of Section 340, ...
industrial Finance Corporation Vs. Flistex Magnetics Limited
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC42
1. Heard Counsel. This appeal is directed against the orders dated 13.7.2004 and 17.8.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRT').The learned Counsel for the appellant points out that the 4th defendant in the suit died on 6.10.2003 and on the application to bring on record her legal representatives, Smt. Babli Kohli and Smt. Manju Kathuria had to be served. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that while some representative of Babli Kohli had appeared at first, but later on neither Manju Kathuria nor Babli Kohli had appeared. He also states that the correct address of Smt. Manju Kathuria had to be ascertained, and that the Counsel for the defendants was even directed to furnish the correct address. He also states that while notice had been prepared for Babli Kohli, notice had not even been issued to Manju Kathuria and, therefore, the order of the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT that the appel...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›