Drat Mumbai Court August 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.
Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. Pankaj A. Mehta and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-2003
Reported in: IV(2004)BC115
1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellant original applicant Punjab and Sind Bank, being aggrieved by the order date 19.8.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Office of Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai in Appeal No. 8/2002. The said appeal was filed by the appellant/obstructionist Mr. Pankaj Mehta being aggrieved by the order passed by the Recovery Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai on 13.4.2002, whereby application in R.P. No. 77/2001 for lifting the attachment over Plot No. 22-A, Shri Bhakti Nagar Co-operative Housing Society, Mathani Road, Rang Bhavan, Rajkot, Gujarat State, came to be rejected. Those recovery proceedings had arisen from recovery certificate issued by DRT-II in Original Application No. 2405 of 1999 against respondent Nos. 2 to 8. By the impugned order dated 19.8.2002, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the said appeal filed by the obstructionist Mr. Pankaj Mehta and the order passed by Recovery Officer on 13.4.2002 rejecting his claim/objection...
Parasrampuria Credit and Vs. Hdfc Bank Ltd.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: IV(2004)BC135
1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendants, being aggrieved by the order dated 10.6.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Murnbai on Exhibit No.60 in Original Application No. 1723/1999. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the application made by the respondent Bank praying for taking on record statement of account, which earlier was not filed by them, albeit with costs to be given to the appellants herein. It appears that in the original application filed by the Bank, the defendants had made an application directing the applicant Bank to file statement of account in compliance to the statement made by the Bank before Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in Misc. Appeal No. 186 of 2002. It appears that at that time the Bank took stand that statement of account filed along with Exhibit 30 was the statement of account in compliance of that order. Therefore, when, subsequently, the Bank came out w...
Rajendra Vinayak Shirgaokar Vs. Industrial Investment Bank of
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-2003
Reported in: IV(2004)BC27
1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellant/original defendant, being aggrieved by the order dated 4.10.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai on Exhibit No.18 in Original Application No. 1094/1999. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the appellant's/defendant's application for recalling order passed by the Tribunal on 15.5.2001 vide Exhibit No. 7 in which, the defendant was directed to disclose on affidavit properties--movable and immovable--belonging to him either solely or jointly.2. I have heard Mr. Gaikwad for the appellant and Mr. Jaychandran for the respondent Bank. I have also gone through the proceedings and in my view, no fault can be found with the impugned order.It is argued by Mr. Gaikwad that the earlier order dated 15.5.2001 was passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal ex parte and the appellant was not heard at the time of passing of the order and, therefore, order was bad. This submission of Mr. Gai...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›