Drat Mumbai Court June 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.
Arvind Steel Company and ors. Vs. Union Bank of India
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2003
Reported in: II(2005)BC151
1. These two appeals can be conveniently disposed of by this common Judgment and Order because though the bills and amount of recovery in these appeals are different, the respondent Bank is the same and pleadings and findings in both the matters arc also identical except the amounts and dates of Hundis. The learned Presiding Officer disposed of both the applications namely O.A. No. 3056/2000 (High Court Summary Suit No. 3324/1993) and O.A. No. 3057/2000 (High Court Summary Suit No.3326/1993) by his common Judgment and Order dated 26.3.2002, which is impugned in these appeals. The appeal No. 17/2002 is arising out pf O.A. No. 3056/2000 and appeal No. 18/02 is arising out of O.A. No.3057/2000.2. Case of the applicant Bank i.e. Union Bank of India in both the original applications? is that one M/s. Basant Alloy Steel Ltd. was its constituents. It has drawn certain bills of; exchange (Hundis) on the defendants for valuable consideration. The Hundis' were payable. after specified period. T...
Chennai Petro Corporation Ltd. Vs. Icici Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-2003
Reported in: IV(2004)BC126
1. This appeal is an apt illustration of how like politics, business makes strange bed-fellows.This appeal is filed by a party which is not party to the original proceedings before Debts Recovery Tribunal-Ill, Mumbai, who did not choose to intervene in those proceedings though, now, before this Forum they say that the impugned order passed by the learned Presiding Officer of DRT-III, Mumbai, which is being assailed by them in this appeal before this Appellate Tribunal, was passed without hearing them and that it is to their detriment. The appellants say that they are aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer of DRT-III, Mumbai on 10.3.2003 and that they learnt about it only from a write- up, which appeared in "Hindu" on 19.2.2003. Hence, they filed the appeal before this Appellate Forum on 28.3.2003.The respondent No. 1 ICICI, on the other hand, is making allegation against the present appellants that this is totally a collusive appeal and that the appellants are ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›