Drat Mumbai Court March 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.
Belley Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC143
1. This Misc. appeal is filed by the appellants/original objectors Belley Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and Another being aggrieved by the order dated 18.9.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai in Appeal No. 34/2002. The said appeal was filed against order of the Recovery Officer dated 5.12.2002 in Recovery Proceeding No. 39/2002. By the said order, the Recovery Officer rejected the application of the appellants dated 4.9.2002 (Exhibit 34) in which they had prayed that the attachment ordered by the Recovery Officer with respect to the property namely 4th floor of Wembley Building, Nehru Road, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai be lifted and that warrant of attachment be quashed. When the appeal was filed against that order passed by the Recovery Officer to the learned Presiding Officer under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the learned Presiding Officer partly allowed the said appeal and substituted the...
Bellary Steels and Alloys Ltd. Vs. Icici Bank Ltd.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC161
1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendants being, aggrieved by the Order dated 13.10.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debt Recovery Tribunal-III,- Mumbai on Exhibit No.1 in Original Application No. 212 of 2003. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer appointed receiver with respect to the properties of the appellants as described in Exhibits A 1, A2, A3, B and C annexed to the plaint/original application and further ordered that the receiver to carry out first the inventory and thereafter submit report and thereafter he should proceed for sale of the properties by adopting due procedure for the same. He also directed that the applicant Bank namely the ICICI Bank Limited who is respondent No. 1 herein could appoint any person from the Bank so as to take the possession of the properties for the sale of the properties.2. I have heard Mr. Madkholkar for the appellants and Mr. Sakseria for the Bank. I have gone through the voluminous pro...
Venkateshwara Garments and Vs. Dena Bank
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC224
1. This Misc. appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendants being aggrieved by the order dated 4.12.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur in Interlocutory Application No. 189/2003 in Original Application No.341/2001. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made the appellants, wherein they had sought directions from the Tribunal to the applicant Bank to take possession of the hypothecated goods lying at M/s. Shivan Enterprises, Gangapur Road, Nagpur and to sell the same and adjust the sale proceeds thereof towards the loan account of defendant No. 1 namely M/s. Venkateshwara Garments and Exports. The respondent No. 1 Bank namely Dena Bank had filed the original application No. 1296/2000 against the defendant/appellants herein in the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai for recovery of Rs. 17,18,552-75 paise with costs and future interest. Thereafter, in view of the establishment of Debts Recovery Tr...
Aristo Realty Developers Ltd. Vs. Icici Bank Ltd. and anr.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC149
1. This appeal is sought to be filed by the appellants/original defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and Order dated 5/8/2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Mumbai in Original Application No. 15/2003. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Presiding Officer, after hearing both the sides and after going through the material ordered issuance of interim recovery certificate as per the provisions of Rule 12(5) of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993 for amount of Rs. 17.96 crores against the defendant Nos. 1 to 3, but in favour of the applicant Bank.Today the application for waiver of deposit as per the provisions of Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 is being argued.2. I have heard Mr. R.O. Agarwal for the appellants so also Mr. Sayyed appearing for the respondent No. 1 Bank. I have also, gone through the proceedings including the impugned judgment and Order so also application for w...
Mrs. Manjula C. Sheth and anr. Vs. Indian Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: III(2005)BC131
1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellants/proposed defendants being aggrieved by the order dated 3.1.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-Ill, Mumbai on Exhibit No.16 in Original Application No. 2203 of 2000. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the application filed by the applicant Bank and ordered that heirs of the original defendant No. 3 (since deceased) be taken on record. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer reviewed his earlier order dated 30.5.2002 whereby he had allowed the application Exh. No. 12 filed by the present appellants for deleting their names from the claim petition and directing the Registrar to enquire into the matter and decide afresh whether the applicants could be added as defendants or not.2. This matter has got rather a checkered history and few relevant facts have to be stated to appreciate the disputed point involved.The appellants are heirs of the deceased defendant No. 3 Ch...
Western Reshellers Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC111
1. This misc. appeal is filled by the appellants/original defendants being aggrieved by the Order dated 11.6.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery tribunal, Pune on Exhibit No.36 in Original Application No; 163/2002. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made by the defendants praying that preliminary issue with respect to maintainability of the original application filed by the applicant Bank be framed.2. I have heard Mr. Palande for the appellants and Mr. Bhambhlani for the respondent No. 1 Bank. I have also gone through the proceedings including the application Exhibit No. 36 and reply filed by the Bank thereto and the impugned Order and in my view, the learned Presiding Officer has correctly passed the order.3. Case of the appellants is that the security documents are not validly and legally executed. It is also contended that the original application is barred by limitation, as the revival letters are not legall...
industrial Development Bank of Vs. Export Import Bank of India and
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC198
1. This misc. Appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendant No.3 Industrial Development Bank of India (for a sake of brevity hereinafter to be referred to as IDBI) being aggrieved by the order dated 15.1.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai in Appeal No. 11 of 2003 in Recovery Proceedings of 29 of 2001 in Original Application No. 2268 of 2000. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants. The said appeal had been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the order passed by the Recovery Officer of the said Tribunal below Exhibit No. 92 in Recovery Proceedings No.29 of 2001 rejecting appellant's contention that the plant and machinery in question were movables and, therefore, the appellants had pari passu charge on the said plant and machinery and they were entitled to share the net sale proceeds thereof.2. Few facts, which are required to be stated and for which there is no disput...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›