Drat Mumbai Court March 2005 Judgments
Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Ellora Steels Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Reported in: III(2005)BC205
1. All these appeals can be disposed of by this common judgment and order as they are arising out of common judgment and order dated 4.4.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad in five original applications filed by the Bank of Maharashtra and Bank of India against the very same respondents. Appeal No. 89 of 2003 is arising out of Original Application No. 137A/2001.Appeal No. 90 of 2003 is arising out of Original Application No.126A/2001. Appeal No. 91 of 2003 is arising out of Original Application No. 374A/ 2001. Appeal No. 92 of 2003 is arising out of Original Application No. 101A/2Q01, while Appeal No. 93 of 2003 is arising out of Original Application No. 139A/2001. While first four appeals are filed by the Bank of Maharashtra, Appeal No. 93 of 2003 is filed by the Bank of India. Issues involved in all the appeals are same and prayers also are common. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Auranga...
Tag this Judgment!Tempcon Industries and ors. Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Reported in: I(2006)BC85
1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendants being aggrieved by the order dated 19.5.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune on Exhibit No.30 in Original Application No. 220-P/2001. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the application made by the respondent No. 1 Bank for amending the original application. The defendants were aggrieved and, hence, the present appeal.2. I have heard Mr. Palande for the appellants and Mr. Thakur for the respondent No. 1 Bank. I have also gone through the proceedings including the original application, proposed amendment, application made by the respondent No. 1 Bank and the impugned order and, in my view, the learned Presiding Officer has correctly passed the order.3. Submission of the respondent No. 1 Bank before the DRT was that the amendment of the plaint/original application was insisted because there were many inaccuracies, omissions about particulars, about do...
Tag this Judgment!Patheja Forgings and Auto Parts Vs. I.F.C.i. Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC87
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 Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai on Exhibit No.30 in Original Application No. 185/2002. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made by the appellants/defendant Nos. 1 and 5 for dismissal of the original application and in the alternative for adjourning it until the logical end of the notice under Section 13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter to be referred to as 'Securitization Act') issued by the leader of the consortium (ICICI Bank) of which (the consortium) the applicant/IFCI Ltd. was a member. The applicant IFCI Ltd. filed original application being O.A. No. 185/2002 for recovery of Rs. 1,15,76,15.607/- with interest thereto. After filing of the original application, the leader o...
Tag this Judgment!Central Bank of India Vs. Kirti Sanjanwala and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: III(2005)BC215
1. This appeal is filed by the appellants/ original applicants Central Bank of India being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31.7.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai in Original Application No. 2766 of 1999. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the original application in favour of the Bank against the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 with costs and ordered them to jointly and severally pay to the Bank a sum of Rs. 1,67,27,825.65 with future interest at the rate of 30.25% per annum with quarterly rests from the date of the application till realization of the amount. He also gave certain consequential declarations. The learned Presiding Officer, however, dismissed the original application as against the defendant Nos. 4,6,7 and 8. It is this portion of the order, which is hurting the applicant Bank and hence, this appeal to that limited extent. The defendant No. 1 Kirti N, Sanjanwala and defendant No. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Central Bank of India and anr. Vs. Testeels Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: I(2007)BC183
1. Both these appeals can be conveniently disposed off by this common judgment and order as they arise from the same judgment and order, parties are same and issue involved is also the same.Appeal No. 30 of 2004 is filed by the appellants/original applicants Central Bank of India and Canara Bank being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 4th November, 2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of D.R.T., Ahmedabad in T.A. No. 568 of 1995 in civil suit No.70 of 1992. Appeal No. 31 of 2004 is filed by the appellants/original applicant Central Bank of India being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 4th November, 2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of D.R.T., Ahmedabad in T.A. No. 567 of 1995 in Civil Suit No. 69 of 1992. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from the appeal No.30 of 2004.2. The appellant Central Bank of India and Canara Bank, at the request of the defendants agreed to provide general credit facilities aggregating to Rs. 6,00,00,000/- in the r...
Tag this Judgment!Petrofils Co-operative Ltd. and Vs. Industrial Development Bank of
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC112
1. Both these appeals can be disposed of by this common order as issues involved in both the appeals are same, parties are same and submissions made therein by all the Advocates are also identical.2. Both the appeals are filed by the appellants/original defendants being aggrieved by the order dated 3.2.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Original Application No. 166 of 2001. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer dismissed the application taken out by the appellants praying for direction to the applicant Banks to produce on record the requisite documentary evidence to show that they had obtained necessary clearance from the Cabinet Committee constituted for the purpose of giving clearance to the dispute before agitating the same in a Court/ Tribunal. It was further prayed that pending production of the documentary evidence, an ex parte order passed by the learned Presiding Officer against them, be forthwith vacated.3. I h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›