Drat Mumbai Court April 2005 Judgments
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Daewoo Motors (i) Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC163
1. This misc. appeal is filed by the appellants/third party Union of India through Deputy Commissioner of Customs (EPCG) being aggrieved by the common order dated 7.4.2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debt Recovery Tribunal-Ill, Mumbai in Misc. Application Nos. 8 and 9 of 2005. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected both the applications.Prayers made by the appellants vide those applications were, that permission be granted to the Customs officers to confiscate the property, which was in the custody of the Court Receiver appointed, for Government dues, as they had got priority and that direction be issued to the Court Receiver/Recovery Officer not to advertise for sale of the properties of the defendant No. 1 Daewoo Motors India Limited, pending and disposal of the appeal on Inward Number 692 of 2004 (Appeal No.114/2005) preferred by the Union of India against the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-Ill, Mumbai ...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of India Vs. Soumitra A. Wardekar
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC128
1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellant/original applicant Bank of India being aggrieved by the order dated 20.12.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune on Exhibit No. 31 in Original Application No. 912/P/2001. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the amendment application made by the Bank for carrying out certain amendments which according to the learned Presiding Officer changed the "battle front." 2. I have heard Mr. Satish Shetye for the appellant Bank and Mr.Dhananjay Patil for the respondents. I have gone through the proceedings including the original application, proposed amendment and the impugned order and in my view, the learned Presiding Officer has correctly passed the order. Having gone through all the proceedings, I find myself in agreement with the finding given by the learned Presiding Officer that by seeking the proposed amendment in the plaint/original application, the applicant Bank was trying to...
Tag this Judgment!J.R. Traders Vs. Union Bank of India
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2005
Reported in: I(2007)BC189
1. This miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendants being aggrieved by the order dated 16th February, 2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of D.R.T. - III, Mumbai on exhibit No. 81 in Original Application No. 2165 of 2000. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made by the appellants/defendants praying that the Tribunal under the powers and provisions of Section 195 read with Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, refer a complaint in writing to the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the branch office where the applicant Bank's branch is located and examine the said complaint and issue process to the accused namely, Madam P.M. Mistry, Kaushalya Sampat and Aadivaran of the applicant Bank for committing the offence of forgery, fabrication of false documents, using documents known to be false, creating and using false evidence. It is this application, which came to be rejected by the learned Presiding Offi...
Tag this Judgment!Applitech Solution Ltd. and anr. Vs. Citi Bank N.A. and anr.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC175
1. This misc. appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendant Nos.1 and 2 being aggrieved by the order dated 1.11.2004 passed by the In-charge, learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad on Exhibit No. A/17 in Original Application No. 258 of 2003.By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the application made by the applicant Bank to discharge respondent No.2/original defendant No. 3 Jayesh Parekh from his personal guarantee.2. I have heard Mr. K.I. Shah for the appellants, Mr. Jagose for the respondent No. 1 Bank and Mr. D'souza for the respondent No. 2. I have also gone through the proceedings including the discharge application made by the applicant Bank in the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad, reply filed by the appellants, the impugned order, so also the guarantee letter dated 6.12.2000 and in my view, the learned Presiding Officer has not committed any error in passing the impugned order.3. Original Application being O.A. No. 258...
Tag this Judgment!Dharampal Seth Vs. Union Bank of India
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC166
1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellant/original defendant No. 2 Shri Dharampal Seth being aggrieved by the order dated 7.7.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II.Mumbai on Exhibit No. 30 in Original Application No. 2440/2000. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made by the appellant for striking off his name, in individual capacity, as defendant from the cause title and for not permitting the applicant Bank to carry out amendment as "Dharampal Seth H.U.F." 2. I have heard Mr. Sharath Pai for the appellant and Mr. Nasikwala for the respondent Bank. I have also gone through the proceedings and in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order.3. Proceedings reveal that the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in their written statement filed on 7.8.1991, when the matter was in the High Court, had contended that the defendant No. 2 HUF (and not as a person) was a partner in the firm of defendant No. 1. When ...
Tag this Judgment!Udaysing Shamrao Chavan Vs. Ratnakar Bank Ltd. and anr.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-2005
Reported in: I(2007)BC176
1. This miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellant/original defendant being aggrieved by the order dated 14th October, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune on exhibit No. 36 in Original Application No. 104/2003. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made by the appellant that necessary directions be given to the applicant Bank to apply one lime settlement guidelines and settle the alleged dues of Rs. 29,25,661/- in 4 six monthly instalments.2. I have heard Mr. Matkar for the appellant and Mr. Bhagwat for the respondent No. 1 Bank. I have also gone through the proceedings including the impugned order and in my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Presiding Officer.3. Contention of the appellant is that he had filed an application for one time settlement before the applicant Bank but applicant Bank was not considering the same. It is submitted that the scheme of on...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›