Drat Mumbai Court November 2002 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.
Parasrampuria Polymides Ltd. and Vs. Canara Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-2002
Reported in: IV(2004)BC238
1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendant Nos.1 to 4 being aggrieved by the order dated 20.8.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur on Interlocutory Application No. 387/2002 in Original Application No.203/2001. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer dismissed stay application made by the appellants for staying proceedings in Original Application till final decision is taken by the B.I.F.R. in case No. 160/2002. Applicant Bank, namely Canara Bank had filed Spl. Civil Suit No. 574/1998 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Nagpur against the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 for recovery of Rs. 10,57,41,633/-. The defendant Nos. 5 and 6 were proforma parties. Some how, the case was kept dragging in the Civil Court till the year 1999. No written statement was filed by the defendants, Thereafter on the passing of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act') and ...
Rohit Travels and anr. Vs. Sangli Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-2002
Reported in: IV(2004)BC203
1. This Misc. appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendant Nos.1 and 2 being aggrieved by the order dated 5.8.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur on interlocutory application No. 421 of 2002 in Original Application No.266 of 2001. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made by the appellants for stay of the proceedings in the DRT till final decision of the Complaint Case No. 41 of 1996 pending before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai with exemplary costs of Rs. 2500/- payable to the applicant Bank by each appellants i.e. defendants Nos. 1 and 2 by way of demand draft on or before 19.8.2002.2. I have heard Mr. Deo for the appellants and Mr. Bhagwat for the respondent No. 1 Bank. I have also perused the proceedings. The respondent No. 1 namely the Sangli Bank had filed Special Civil Suit No. 30 of 1999 against the appellants and two more, in the Court of Civil Judge (SD), Am...
Shrijee Nutrients Food Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Maharashtra State Financial
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: IV(2004)BC206
1. This Misc. appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendant Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 7 being aggrieved by the order dated 4.7.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur on Interlocutory Application No. 482 of 2002 in Original Application No.316 of 2001. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer dismissed the interlocutory application made by the appellants to stay the proceedings under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, pending in the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur till decision of the Special Civil Suit No. 1034 of 1996, pending on the file of Civil Judge (S.D.), Nagpur. The original applicant Maharashtra State Financial Corporation (hereinafter to be referred to for the sake of brevity as the Corporation) filed Misc. Civil Application No. 843 of 1996 under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 in the Court of District Judge, Nagpur against the defendant Nos. 1 to 7 (applicant Nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 7 and the ...
Krishna Kumar Daga and anr. Vs. C.B.i. and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-2002
Reported in: IV(2004)BC218
1. This matter is moved by way of praecipe by Mr. K.R. Shekhawat and Mr. M.D. Samel, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 Bank, appears on notice.2. The appellants/original defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are aggrieved by the order dated 24.9.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur on I.A. No. 203 of 2002 in Original Application No. 140/2001.By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer, not only rejected the application made by the appellants for permeating them to cross-examine the Bank witnesses who might file affidavit, but also struck off the evidence of two Bank witnesses namely P. W. No. 1 Mr.Shalik Laxmanrao Parate and P.W. No. 2 Mr. Mukund Vasudeo Naik, which was already recorded by the Civil Court and which evidence therefore had become part of the record and proceedings.3. Few facts, which are required to be stated, of the case, are as follows: The applicant Bank namely the Central Bank of India had filed civil suit No. 979 of 1993 against...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›