Drat Mumbai Court January 2003 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.
Vedant Paper Craft Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Indian Bank
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2003
Reported in: I(2005)BC13
1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the order dated 6.8.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur on Interlocutory Application No. 562/2002 in Original application No. 158/2001. By the impugned Order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made by the appellants for amendment of the written statement with exemplary costs of Rs. 2,000/-, which was to be paid to the applicant Bank by way of demand draft on or before 21.8.2002, and on failure to pay the costs, direction was given to issue interim recovery certificate in favour of the applicant Bank, for recovery of the exemplary costs from the defendants.2. I have heard Mr. Thakkar for the appellants and Mr. Nair for the respondent Bank. I have gone through the proceedings including the impugned order and in my opinion, the learned Presiding officer was not justified in rejecting the said application made by the appellants for amendment of the written st...
Leo Suzind Fisheries Ltd. and ors. Vs. State Bank of India
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2003
Reported in: IV(2004)BC251
1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendants being aggrieved by the order dated 3.5.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Mumbai on Exh. No. 42 in Original Application No. 629/2000. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding officer only partly allowed the application made by the appellants for adding certain paras in original written, statement and observed that since the other paras made out a case for counter-claim, those paras could not be allowed unless requisite Court fee was paid. The appellants are aggrieved by this order, because according to them, there was nothing like counter claim in the paragraphs, which were proposed to be incorporated by way of amendment, and hence they ought to have been allowed by the learned Presiding Officer, without insisting for payment of Court fees. Since, that prayer was not allowed, the present appeal is filed.2. I have heard Mr. Bhagwat for the appellants and Mr. Kaushik for the...
Blue Blends (India) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Canara Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2003
Reported in: IV(2004)BC250
1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellant/original defendants being aggrieved by the order dated 4.6.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai on Exh. No. 16 in Original Application No. 2518/2000. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer, directed to implement the order passed on 7.2.2001, which required the appellants to disclose their assets on affidavit, when the appellant No. 1 Company namely M/s. Blue Blends (India) Limited was before BIFR.2. I have heard all the Advocates at length and also have gone through the proceedings including the impugned order and in my opinion, the learned Presiding Officer was not justified in directing the appellants to disclose their assets on oath, when the appellant No. 1 company was before BIFR. The learned Presiding Officer, however, has stayed further proceedings of the Original Application, but all the same insisted that affidavit disclosing their assets be filed and warned of taking act...
Chitralekha R. Gupta and ors. Vs. the Dhanlakshmi Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-2003
Reported in: IV(2004)BC42
1. These two Misc. Appeals are filed by the appellants/original defendants being aggrieved by the order dated 23.12.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai on Exh.Nos. 50 and 52 in Original Application No. 11/2002. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made by the appellants for dismissal of the Original Application and directed the defendants to file written statement on or before 14.1.2003. Being aggrieved, the present Misc. Appeals are filed.2. I have heard Mr. Shah for the appellants and Mr. Kaisar Merchant for the respondents. I have also gone through the proceedings, including the impugned order and in my opinion; the impugned order is correctly passed by the learned Presiding Officer.The appellants were arraigned as defendants in the Original Application in their status as guarantors to the loan transaction between the applicant Bank and M/s. Lloyds Finance Ltd. respondent No. 2. The loan was adm...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›