Drat Delhi Court February 2006 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.
Smt. Sarju Devi and ors. Vs. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2006
Reported in: III(2006)BC84
1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Jaipur in appeal No. 17 of 2004 on October 7, 2004.2. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants as well as learned Counsel for the first respondent-bank. According to Mr. B. S. Nagar, learned Counsel for the appellants, one Mr. Ram Manohar Natani, one of the directors of M/s. Divya Fibres Pvt. Ltd. who obtained loan from the respondent-bank herein, became defaulter, resulting in the institution of the OA before the Debts Recovery Tribunal by the respondent-bank.The suit has been decreed. While so, the respondent-bank decided to proceed under the Securitisation Act by serving notice under Section 13(2) on September 27, 2002, on the respondents and took further measures under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act for taking possession. It also filed an application under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act before the District Magistrate, Jaipur.3. However, the respondent-bank pursued execut...
Punjab and Sind Bank and anr. Vs. Arun Kumar Arora and anr.
Court: DRAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Reported in: II(2006)BC232
1. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal(DRT), Chandigarh on 20.1.2006 in Interim Appeal No.927/2005 and also the consequential order passed on 23.1.2006 in SA No.69/2005.2. Heard Mr. I .P. Singh. learned Counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. N.C. Sahni, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent. In order to appreciate the contentions raised, few facts which are necessary are recorded hereunder. The respondents mortgaged certain properties towards the loan facilities obtained by M/s. Partap Trading Company and M/s. Prabhat Trading Company owned by the respondents herein with their better halfs. As there was default, the appellant Bank involved provisions under the Securitisation and Reconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Securitisation Act) and took possession of the property offered as security on behalf of M/s. Pratap Trading Company of which both the respondents are...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›