Drat Mumbai Court June 2005 Judgments
State Bank of India Vs. S.S. Plastics and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2005
Reported in: I(2007)BC164
1. This appeal is filed by the appellants/original applicant. State Bank of India being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30th April. 2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad in Original Application No. 329-A/2001.By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Presiding Officer partly allowed the Original Application with proportionate costs and ordered the defendant Nos. 1 to 7 to jointly and severally pay to the applicant Bank certain amount of Rs. 18,49,913/- as mentioned in serial No. 2 of the operative portion of the order with interest at the simple rate of Rs. 6% per annum from 1st August, 1993 onwards till date of filing of the suit. The learned Presiding Officer also ordered the defendant Nos. 1 to 7 to jointly and severally pay future interest to the applicant Bank on the said amount at the simple rate of Rs. 6% per annum from the date of the suit till realization of the amount. The Bank is aggrieved because simple rate...
Tag this Judgment!JockIn Ellis Mendoz Caroline Vs. Haby Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-2005
Reported in: 3(2006)BC119
1. This miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellants/interveners being aggrieved by the order dated 15th October, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the D.R.T.-I, Mumbai on exhibit No. 37 in Original Application No. 155 of 2002. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made by the appellants/interveners in which they had prayed that they be declared as legal owners of the property, which is the subject-matter of the Original Application No. 155 of 2002.2. I have heard Ms. Shaikh for the appellants, Mr. Nagori for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, so also Mr. Sawant for the respondent No. 3. I have also gone through the proceedings including the impugned order and in my view, there is no infirmity at all in the impugned order.3. It appears that the appellants were allowed to intervene during the pendency of the Original Application being Original Application No. 155 of 2002. The interveners were praying that they be declared as legal owne...
Tag this Judgment!Chief Manager, Bank of India Vs. Gunvantiben Bhawarlal Mehta
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2005
Reported in: II(2006)BC16
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/applicant Bank of India being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 14th December, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of D.R.T. II, Mumbai in appeal No, 101 of 2004, By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the appeal filed by the appellants Mrs. Gunvantiben Mehta and Mr, Bhawarlal Mehta under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter to be referred to as the SRFAESI Act) and ordered the respondent Bank to immediately re-deliver possession of the flat to the appellants. The learned Presiding Officer also ordered the Bank to pay compensation to the appellants at the rate of Rs. 5007- per day from the date of order till delivery of the flat.Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the Bank under Section 18 of the SRFAESI Act. Case of the appellants in their appeal before the D.R.T....
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Kumar Agarwal Vs. Bank of India and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2005
Reported in: 3(2006)BC125
1. This miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellant/original defendant No. 3 Kailash Kumar Agrawal being aggrieved by the order dated 26th March, 2004; passed by the learned Presiding Officer of D.R.T.-I, Mumbai on Exhibit No. 52 in Original Application No. 3558 of 2000. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer made absolute earlier interim order passed by him restraining the defendant No. 3 the present appellant, his servants, agents, etc. from disposing of or alienating or transferring or encumbering or creating any right, title and interest in favour of any third party in respect of the whole or any part of the premises mentioned in the schedule viz. entire factory property situated at 202, Road No. 1, MIA Udaipur, Rajasthan and entire residential property situated at Badla Road, Opposite Mahavir Complex, Udaipur, Rajasthan. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the original defendant No. 3.2. I have heard Mr. Anup Khaitan for the appellant and Mr. O.A. Das...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Bansilal Raisoni and Vs. Hdfc Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-2005
Reported in: 3(2006)BC138
1. This miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendant Nos. 3 to 6 being aggrieved by the order dated 23rd September, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of D.R.T., Pune on Ext. No. 28 in Original Application No. 226 of 2003. By the impugned order the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made by the appellants for staying proceedings in the D.R.T. on the ground that criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act initiated by the Bank are pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dadar.2. I have heard Mr. Shintre for the appellant and Mr. Nasikwala for the respondent Bank. I have also gone through the proceedings including the impugned order and, in my view, the learned Presiding Officer has correctly passed the order.3. It is the contention of the appellants that since criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dadar, proceedi...
Tag this Judgment!Stak Cable Arts and ors. Vs. Union Bank of India and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2005
Reported in: (2006)129CompCas269NULL
1. This appeal is sought to be filed by the appellants/original judgment-debtors. They have not filed any substantive appeal (so far) against the judgment and order passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Mumbai, in Original Application No.3569 of 2000 in favour of the applicant-bank and against the present appellants. In due course, recovery proceedings being R. P. No. 191 of 2002 commenced and also came to be finally concluded. The judgment-debtors never paid a single farthing to the applicant-bank.Their property therefore was put to sale and was knocked down in favour of the bidder for consideration of Rs. 36,00,786. It was only after the sale was conducted that the appellants suddenly raised certain objections with respect to the manner in which the sale was conducted, making grievance that no public auction was carried out, that some other offer made by Mr. Sanjay Modi ought to have been considered by the Recovery Officer and that the Recovery ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›