Drat Kolkata Court May 2001 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.
Bhattacharyya Brothers and ors. Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Court: DRAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-2001
1. The appeal arising out of order dated 20.12.2000 and 29.12.2000 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati, in O. A. No. 4/1997 deals with a very short aspect but at the same time a critical aspect of the claim case pending before the Tribunal.2. It is the case of the appellant who was the defendant in the claim case that no opportunity was given to them to cross examine the witness of the Bank who gave evidence on the basis of affidavit. It is also alleged that enough opportunity has not been given to the defendant to file affidavit evidence. It is further alleged that defendant Nos. 8 and 9 who are already dead have not been substituted by incorporating the legal representatives and, as such, the final order to be passed in the claim case will be infructuous.3. The appeal is being resisted by respondent Bank, who is contesting the appeal by filing a written objection denying all allegations and stating that the defendants were killing time and dela...
United Bank of India Vs. Ramdas Mahadeo Prasad and ors.
Court: DRAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-2001
1. Two appeals being A-23/2000 and A-6/ 2001 were heard in analogous since they arose out of the same judgment and order dated 7th of July, 2000 passed by the Presiding Officer. D.R.T.-l, Calcutta, in T.A. No.106/1996. In A-23/2000 the United Bank of India is the appellant while they were the petitioners in the Tribunal below. In A-6/2001 the appellants are opposite parties in the claim cases in the Tribunal below.2. Earlier the United Bank of India filed suit before the Civil Court for realisation of certain sum of money alleged to have been put to the opposite parties but were not repaid by them. After the promulgation of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act the said claim was automatically transferred to the Tribunal from the Civil Court. Thereafter, the matter was heard when both the sides examined one witness each besides filing certain documents. The learned Presiding Officer after considering the evidence on the record came to the conclusion that the to...
Poddars Electronics Ltd. Vs. Allahabad Bank and 5 ors.
Court: DRAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-2001
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta, dated 23.10.2000 in T.A. No. 347 of 1995 by which the learned Presiding Officer refused to set aside the ex-pane order passed by him.2. The case of the appellant who was defendant No. 4 in the original suit before the Debt Recovery Tribunal is that he was not aware of the filing of the suit till 25.11.1998 when he came across a paper publication whereby his knowledge about a suit by the Bank drawned. It is the further case of the appellant that no attempt was made to serve notice of the suit on the appellant and, as such, the substituted service effected by publication is not in accordance with law. It is their further case that on getting the information from the newspaper, he at once contacted a Lawyer and after inspection of the record, application was made for certified copy of the impugned order on 7.12.1998. He got the certified copy on 10.12.1998 and thereafter filed a Misc. Case...
Allahabad Bank Vs. Globe Paper Mills Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-2001
1. The appeal arises out of order dated 5.3.1999 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Calcutta, by which the payer regarding non-payment of fee contained in the application made by the appellant Bank was rejected.2. Being aggrieved the present appeal has been filed alleging that the impugned order is bad in law since the appellant Bank already paid Court-fees in accordance with rules while they filed the claim case before the Civil Court which was later decreed. Since the decree was not executed and in the meantime, the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act came into force the appellant Bank had to file an application before the Tribunal under Section 19 praying for execution of the decree of the Civil Court in accordance with law. But the learned Presiding Officer, on the basis of the report of the learned Registrar of the Tribunal, directed payment of the fees in accordance with Rule 7 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) ...
Allahabad Bank Vs. Bharat Re-rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Court: DRAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-2001
1. The appeal arises out of order dated 23.6.2000 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna in O.A.Case No. 133 of 1999.2. The applicant Bank filed a claim case before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and in the said claim case filed a composite application containing two prayers namely, prayer for temporary injunction and prayer for appointment of Receiver so far as it relates to the property of the opposite party mortgaged/hypothecated to the Bank as security for the loan. The learned Presiding Officer after hearing the parties rejected the prayer on merit as well as on technical ground.3. He is of opinion that no case has been made out for injunction as well as appointment of Receiver, since there is no reasonable cause for apprehension in the minds of the appellant-petitioner. Being aggrieved the appeal has been preferred alleging that the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer is not in accordance with law and that he was not right in basing his de...
United Bank of India Vs. Guru Forging and Agrico Pvt. Ltd.
Court: DRAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-2001
1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta, dated 28.6.2000 in Case No. O.A. 6/1997 of the Tribunal.2. The present appellant from time-to-time in accordance with the usual practice of the Bank lent certain sums of money to the respondent No. 1 Company of which respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were originally the partners while respondent No. 4 subsequently purchased the Company and took upon himself the liability to pay the dues from the Company. Since, the loan was not repaid the Bank filed a claim case before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for realising a sum of Rs. 65 lakhs and odd. While the proceeding was in progress, there were series of talks as also exchange of letters containing proposals and counter proposals between the parties namely, the Bank and Company ultimately resulting in offer from the Bank by its letter dated 7.10.1997 wherein the Bank agreed to accept 33 lakhs by way of full satisfaction of due...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›