Court : DRAT Kolkata
1. The appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 22.1.2001 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Calcutta, in O.A. No. 5/1997.2. The appellant filed a claim case before the Debts Recovery Tribunal against the respondents for realisation of certain sum of money as the same was not repaid in terms of the agreement by the latter. The respondent was contesting the claim by filing written objection alleging that the application was barred by law of limitation. In course of trial the applicant Bank adduced oral evidence besides submitting certain documents. The learned Presiding Officer on a consideration of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the respondent-defendant signed a balance confirmation statement on 2.12.1993 and 14.1.1994 as claimed by the Bank. Accordingly, he found the claim case barred by law and as such it was dismissed.3. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been preferred by the Bank challenging the findings of the Tribun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
1. The appeal arises out of order dated 28.3.2000 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna, in Execution Case No. 55 of 1999.2. The respondent State Bank filed a claim case against the appellant in a Civil Court and got a decree by way of compromise between the parties. Hereafter, it was transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal in view of the promulgation of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act. On receipt of the record, the learned Presiding Officer issued a certificate. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been preferred alleging that no opportunity was given to the appellant to contest the issuance of certificates. It is alleged that the Bank induced the appellant to enter into a compromise by granting "no objection" certificate, that subsequently, it appeared to the appellant that such "no objection" certificate was not in accordance with law. It is also alleged that the compromise decree was a preliminary one and there was no ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
1. The appeal arises out of order dated 19.8.1999 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Calcutta in Misc.Application No. 19/1998 arising out of T.A. No. 15 of 1994.2. The present appellant filed an application alongwith a prayer for condonation of limitation for setting aside the ex pane decree passed by the Tribunal on 15.6.1995. Earlier, the respondent Bank filed a suit in the Court of Assistant District Judge, Alipore, for certain sum of money against the appellant and others. The suit was later transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, in Calcutta, The present appellant engaged an Advocate in the suit. But the said Advocate instead of appearing before the Tribunal for setting aside ex pane give the advice to file the writ application in the Calcutta High Court, challenging the vires of the Act. Certain restrain order was passed from time to time in the said proceeding. The another application under Article 227 of the Constitution was also filed in the High ...
Tag this Judgment!