Drat Delhi Court August 2005 Judgments
Him Ispat Ltd. and ors. Vs. Ifci Ltd. and ors..
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-31-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC207
1. The appellants are defendants in O. A. No. 655 of 2002 filed by the respondent-financial institution seeking to recover more than Rs. 70 crores. The O. A. proceedings are in progress. However, this respondent-financial institution filed Miscellaneous Application No.3275 of 2003 seeking certain directions from the Tribunal. The said application came to be considered by the Tribunal, and the Tribunal, on the basis of submissions made by both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, by order dated December 12, 2003, directed the appellants herein to hand over within 15 days the leased assets as detailed in the lease agreement to the respondent-financial institution herein. Against this order the present appeal is filed.2. Mr. B. S. Nagar, learned counsel for the appellants-defendants mainly contended that the provisions appearing under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short "the Act"), do not empower the Trib...
Tag this Judgment!Richhpal Singh Vs. Syndicate Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-24-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC95
1. Appellant is the principal borrower and the 1st defendant in O.A.214/2002 instituted by the 1st respondent-Bank.2. During the course of the trial, this appellant entered into some sort of compromise with the respondent-Bank and filed I.A. 515/2005 under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC for recording compromise. The said application came up for consideration before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal, by order dated 22.7.2005, dismissed the said application solely on the ground that there are other defendants 4 to 8 who have also furnished security and as long as those defendants are not joined as parties, such compromise could not be recorded. It is this order which is challenged before this Court in the present appeal.3. I have heard Mr. M.C. Kochhar, Counsel for the appellant and Mr.V.K. Dhar, Counsel for the 1st respondent -Bank. On the basis of submissions made by both the Counsel, the point for consideration is whether the lower Court was justified in rejecting the appl...
Tag this Judgment!Arrow Trading Corporation and Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-2005
Reported in: I(2006)BC88
1. These two appeals are taken up together for consideration as the issue involved in these two appeals is one and the same, and are disposed of by the following common order : 2. On the basis of the submissions made by Mr. Joginder Sukhija, learned counsel for the appellants, it would appear that in the pending O. A. No. 9 of 2003 and O. A. No. 8 of 2003 these appellants moved I.A. No. 276 of 2004 and I. A. No. 277 of 2004 respectively seeking summoning of Dr. P. S. Chawla, a resident of Delhi for proving a case against the respondent herein. The said two applications came up for consideration before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal, by two similar orders, dismissed the said applications on the ground that no case has been made out for granting such permission. The present appeals have been filed against those orders.3. At the threshold counsel for the respondent-bank raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that all the parties have not been...
Tag this Judgment!Babbar S.J. Bahadur Vs. Allahabad Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC39
1. Aggrieved by the order made by the Tribunal on 29.8.2001 in O.A.683/95 the present appeal has been filed. Few facts which are relevant for the purpose of disposing of this appeal are recorded hereunder: 2. The appellant claims to be the legal representative of the deceased 2nd defendant in the suit instituted in the year 1979 by the 1st respondent-Bank before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, seeking to recover a sum of more than Rs. 13 lakhs. This appellant claims that the 2nd defendant died when the suit was pending before the Hon'ble High Court, and that the fact of demise of the 2nd defendant was intimated to the respondent-Bank by presenting two letters dated 15.7.1991 and 22.2.1992 respectively. After constitution of the DRTs in the country pursuant to the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the suit came to be transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to the DRT, Delhi in the year 1995.Thereafter, the suit was taken up by the DRT for co...
Tag this Judgment!K.C. Textiles Ltd. and ors. Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC44
1. The respondent-Bank has filed this petition seeking to vacate the stay order granted by this Court on 31.5.2005. In the petition, it is stated that this vacate petitioner had invoked the provisions under Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act, such steps undertaken by the respondent Bank herein invoking the provisions under Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act was questioned by the appellant under Section 17 of the Securitization Act on various grounds. It is also stated that as provided under the scheme of the Securitization Act, in terms of Section 18, no appeal could be entertained unless the appellant deposits 50% of the amount. However, the said provision further gives a discretion to the Chairman or DRAT who can reduce it to 25%.2. The learned Counsel for the vacate petitioner Mr. Lajwinder Singh pleaded when the appeal was preferred along with the Miscellaneous Application No. 136/2005 seeking exemption from deposit under Section 18 of the Securitization Act, the tribuna...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›