Drat Mumbai Court May 2005 Judgments
Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs. Gangadhar Hotchand Rohera
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-11-2005
Reported in: II(2006)BC167
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant Bank/Original Applicant Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Ltd. being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31st March, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of D.R.T.-I, Mumbai in Original Application No. 3098/1999. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Presiding Officer dismissed the Original Application filed by the appellant Bank. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed in this appellate Tribunal. The appellant Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Ltd. is a Banking company incorporated in the United Arab Emirates. It is the case of the applicant Bank that the defendant Gangadhar Hotchand Rohera was carrying on business alongwith one Mr. Hassan Ali Attar in the name and style of Golden Market General Trading Establishment, Dubai (Golden Market). The said Golden Market had availed credit facilities from the applicant Bank at Dubai. One Mr. Hussain Quasim Ali Al Shraif was the guarantor. The said Golden Market had failed and neglected to...
Tag this Judgment!United Western Bank Ltd. Vs. Jadhav Shoe Industries (P) Ltd.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC132
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant The United Western Bank Ltd., Sangli Branch being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 13.6.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune in Original Application No. 91/2002. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Presiding Officer, though directed the issuance of recovery certificate in terms of the compromise pursis filed by the parties, he gave declaration that the mortgage evidenced in memorandum dated 24.7.1997 in respect of plot Nos. 109, 110 and 111 Vasantdada Industrial Estate, Sangli was non-est and hence, unenforceable. The appellant Bank is aggrieved by this latter portion of the order and hence, the appeal to that limited extent. The appellant Bank filed application for recovery against the defendant Nos. 1 to 6. The defendants appeared and contested the claim and thereafter, compromise was entered into between the appellant Bank and the defendant Nos. 1 to 6. They filed a compromise...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›