Drat Delhi Court July 2005 Judgments

Satish Vohra Vs. Canara Bank and ors.

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: IV(2005)BC196

1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the DR-I in IA No. 720/2002.2. Heard Mr. M.C. Kochhar, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Ms. Seema Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent Bank.3. From the narration of facts of the learned Counsel for the appellant, it would appear that in the suit instituted by the respondent Bank herein for recovery of certain amounts, this applicant was arrayed as defendant No. 7 in the suit. Before filing the written statement, the appellant filed an IA No. 67/2002 on 23.1.2002 seeking furnishing of better particulars enabling the applicant to file his written statement. However, that application seems to have been dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant filed his written statement on 6.5.2002.4. It so happened that the Company Court seems to have directed the Official Liquidator to permit the appellant to inspect the records of the company. Accordingly, the appellant to inspect the records of the company. Accordingly, the appellant se...

Subhash Project and Marketing Vs. Rural Electrification

Court: DRAT Delhi

Reported in: IV(2005)BC86

1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Tribunal in I.A. 660 of 2004 on 18.8.2001.2. Heard Mr. Vivek Sharma, Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mukul Chandra, Counsel for the 1st respondent Bank.3. From the narration of the facts by the learned Counsel for the appellant it would appear that the appellant filed I.A. 660/2004 under Section 22(c) of the DRT Act seeking dismissal of the O.A. on the premise that the evidence filed by way of affidavit is not in tune with Order 19 Rule 3 for the CPC and that it has not been duly attested. The matter was contested, and the Tribunal on coming to the conclusion that the application is devoid of any merits dismissed the application, against which the present appeal has been filed.4. The only grievance made out by Mr. Vivek Sharma, the finding recorded by the Tribunal in para 8 of the order that, so far as the prayer of the defendants regarding declaring that the affidavit is bad in law and cannot be looked into, is beyond the p...

R.P. Punj and ors. Vs. Ifci Ltd.

Court: DRAT Delhi

1. Appellants herein are defendant Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 in Original Application No. 543/1999 on the file of D.R.T.-I, Delhi. The respondent financial institution herein instituted the said Original Application against these appellants and the principal borrower for recovery of certain amounts. The suit was proceeded with but however could not reach a finality.2. In the meantime, the principal borrower i.e. the defendant No.1 in Original Application moved the BIFR for appropriate rehabilitation under SIC Act. The BIFR registered the representation of the principal borrower who is defendant No.1 in Original Application case No. 331 of 2000. The BIFR having taken into consideration totality of issues made certain arrangements which are reflected in sub-para (e) and (1) of para 17 which is as under: The financial institutions and banks could continue their suit filed earlier against the company before the company got registered in terms of the Act, but no decree could be executed or no fres...