Drat Mumbai Court May 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.
Cassim M. Jadwet and anr. Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-07-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC153
1. The defendant Nos. 2 and 4 in O. A. No. 2367 of 2000 (High Court Suit No. 341 of 1984) have filed this Application for setting aside ex pane judgment dated 30th January 2003 passed by this Tribunal and revocation of the Recovery Certificate issued pursuant thereto.2. The grounds on which this application is rested are that the applicants are Calcutta based which fact was within the knowledge of the Advocate for the respondent No. 1 Bank. By letter dated 25th November, 1997, addressed to the Advocate for the respondent No. 1 Bank, the Advocate for the applicants expressly intimated the fact. The applicants have, however, a small liaison office in Bombay situated at Vaid Building, 3rd Floor, 102, Mohammed Ali Road, Mumbai-400003, which has a few employees and is usually kept closed. On or about 9th July, 2003, a Registered A.D. envelope on address at 95, Mohammed Shahid Marg, Bombay-400005 from this Tribunal was sought to be delivered at the liaison office. As the applicants were not...
Southern Petrochemical Vs. Administrator of Specified
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC129
1. This Misc. appeal is filed by appellants/ original defendants being aggrieved by common Order dated 12.2.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai. By the impugned common order, the learned. Presiding Officer, while allowing applications made by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for amendment as set out in the schedules of their applications, dismissed the application of the appellants taken out by them for dismissing the original application. The respondent No. 1 is the Administrator of Specified Undertaking of Unit Trust of India in his capacity as successor in interest of Specified Undertaking of Unit Trust of India, a statutory corporation constituted under Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (since repealed) and the respondent No. 2 is UTI Trustee Company Pvt, Ltd. in its capacity as successor in interest of Undertaking (excluding Specified Undertaking) of Unit Trust of India.2. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are the original applicants in Original...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›