Drat Mumbai Court February 2004 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.
Kurian Babu and ors. Vs. Central Bank of India
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: III(2004)BC27
1. This misc. appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendant Nos.3 and 4 being aggrieved by the order dated 16.6.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune on Exhibit No. 43 in Original Application No. 38/P/2001. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the application made by the Bank to lead secondary evidence as the original documents could not be traced though extensive search was made by the concerned officers of the applicant Bank to find out the same. The defendants felt aggrieved and hence have filed the present appeal before this Appellate Tribunal.2. I have heard Mr. Kurian Babu, the appellant in person (original defendant No. 3) and Mr. Thakore appearing for the respondent No. 1 Bank. I have gone through the proceedings including the impugned order and in my view, the learned Presiding Officer has not acted fairly in allowing the application made by the Bank when in fact no case was made out by the Bank to take re...
State Bank of India Vs. Vivek Textile Mills and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC211
2. The appellants/State Bank of India are aggrieved by the order dated 13.10.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Mumbai on Exhibit No. 92 in Original Application No. 1028 of 1999. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed application made by the defendants for cross-examination of the applicant Bank's witness on the ground that there was ambiguity in the pleadings and directed the Bank to keep its Assistant Manager, Mr.Abhijit G. Pangarekar present on the next date. Hence, the appeal.3. I have heard Mr. Satish Shetye for the appellants and Mr. Rishabh Shah for the respondents. I have also gone through the proceedings including the impugned order and in my opinion, no fault can be found with the impugned order.4. Grievance of the appellants is that the impugned order is erroneous because actually no case was made out by the defendants in their application for seeking permission to cross-examine the Bank's witness.Oral grievanc...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›