Drat Mumbai Court December 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.
State Bank of India Vs. Kamalesh Ice Industries and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-30-2002
Reported in: IV(2004)BC241
1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellant State Bank of India/Original Applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 23.4.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal Ahmedabad in Civil Misc. Application No. 7 of 2002, arising out of Original Application No. 81 of 1995. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the application made by the original defendants (present respondent Nos. 1 to 4) wherein, they had inter alia sought extension of time to make balance payment to the applicant Bank till 30.6.2002 though there were consent terms filed by the parties. This payment was to be made much earlier. In short, the application was made by the defendants praying for directions from the Tribunal that the Bank be directed to accept payment of instalment beyond the time which was fixed between the parties as per the consent terms. This extension was granted by the Tribunal and this is what is hurting the Bank and hence, the present Misc. appea...
Central Bank of India Vs. Apple Finance Limited and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2002
Reported in: IV(2004)BC233
1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellant/original applicant Bank namely Central Bank of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 6.8.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai on the application made by the respondents dated 19.7.2002 (Exhibit 23) inter alia seeking modification of the earlier order dated 9.7.2002 (Exhibit 16).2. The earlier order dated 9.7.2002 was passed by the learned Presiding Officer on the application made by the Bank and injunction as prayed in terms of prayer Clause (a) was granted. This order was passed after perusing valuation report. It also appears that at the time of hearing of this application, none was present on behalf of the defendants (the respondents herein). Prayer Clause (a) of the said application reads as follows: "(a) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the application, the defendant No. 1 be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon'ble Tribunal from in any manner alienating, part...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›