Drat Kolkata Court July 2004 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.
industrial Development Bank of Vs. Antartica Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-2004
Reported in: III(2006)BC61
1. This appeal has been preferred from an order dated 30th May, 2003, made by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal (I), Kolkata, hereinafter referred to as "the DRT", The principal grievance of the appellants, as appeared from the Memorandum of Appeal, was that the learned Presiding Officer while disposing of the respondents' interlocutory application had wrongfully and illegally dismissed the claim of the appellants, even before the filing of any written statement by the respondents, and in the absence of any evidence in support of the contentions of the parties. According to the respondents, however, it was abundantly clear from the documents that the appellants had admitted having received their entire dues and that the DRT in exercise of its powers and jurisdiction had rightly dismissed the claim of the appellants. The hearing of the appeal was concluded and judgment was reserved. Thereafter, Advocate on behalf of the respondent No. 3 mentioned the matter, upon n...
D.C. Ghose and Co. (Agents) Pvt. Vs. Standard Chartered Bank
Court: DRAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-2004
Reported in: III(2006)BC92
1. This appeal has been preferred from an order dated 15th December, 2003 made by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-1, Kolkata hereinafter referred to as "the DRT'. The appellants were aggrieved that the DRT had chosen to ignore the concluded oral agreement between the parties, and had wrongfully directed the issuance of a certificate in favour of the Bank. The Bank's contention was that no oral agreement was ever concluded between the parties, and no effect was given to the alleged settlement, and consequently the Bank was entitled to and the DRT had, in accordance with the law, issued the certificate in its favour.2. It was submitted by Advocates for the appellants, that in the oral agreement the parties had unequivocally settled their disputes in the claim petition, and that the Bank had agreed to receive from the appellants a sum of Rs. 54 lacs, in full and final satisfaction of its claim. He contended, that on the stipulated date the appellants had tendered a sum of Rs. 15 lacs,...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›