Drat Mumbai Court February 2005 Judgments
Sharad D. Khadepau and anr. Vs. Dena Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
1. This miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellants/ original defendant Nos. 2 (a) and 2 (b) being aggrieved by the order dated 3rd December, 2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Mumbai on exhibit Nos. 16 and 23 in Original Application No. 382 of 200 1. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the application made by the respondent No.1 bank for taking on record heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant Nos. 2 and 4. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant No.2 Dhansukhlal PanalaI Khadepau, who had expired on 17th August, 2001.2. Few relevant facts, which are required to be stated are as follows: The respondent No.1 Dena Bank has filed suit in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay being suit No. 1140 of 1998 against six defendants praying joint and several decree against them for an aggregate sum of Rs. 76,23,255.app. with interest etc....
Tag this Judgment!Bank of BahraIn and Kuwait B.S.C. Vs. G.S.L. (India) Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
1. This miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellants/original applicants bank of Bahrain & Kuwait B.S.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 25th July, 2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the D.R.T.-II, Mumbai on exhibit Nos. 27 and 31 in Original Application No.637/2001. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer stayed the further proceedings against the defendant No. 1 until decision of the appeal bearing No. 306 of 2002 pending with AAIFR. being aggrieved, the bank has filed the appeal in this Appellate Forum.2. I have heard Mr. Colabawala for the appellant bank and Mr. K.K. Jain for the respondent No.1. I have also gone through the proceedings and relevant provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and in my view, the learned Presiding Officer's interpretation of Section 22 of SICA, was not correct.3. Few facts, which are required to be stated are as follows: Original Application was filed by the applicant bank against the d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›