Drat Mumbai Court August 2005 Judgments
Hrushikesh Praharaj Vs. Bank of India and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-2005
Reported in: II(2006)BC197
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant No. 2. Krushikesh Praharaj being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 7th August, 2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer P.R.T. I II, Mumbai in Original Application No. 3078 of 2000. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the original application in favour of the Bank and ordered all the six defendants to pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 23,59,911/- together with simple future interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization. The learned Presiding Officer also gave certain consequential declarations absolving the defendant No. 7 from the liability and ordered issuance of recovery certificate in the above stated terms. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed only by defendant No. 2. Hrushikesh Praharaj.2. Few facts, which are required to be stated are as follows: The defendant No. 1 Konark Computers Pvt. Ltd. is a pr...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Bank Vs. Dena Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2005
Reported in: III(2006)BC65
1. This substantive appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendant No. 13 Indian Bank being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 8th November, 2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the D.R.T.-1, Mumbai in Original Application No. 1008/2000 (High Court Suit No. 4627 /1997). By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the Original Application with costs in favour of the original applicants Dena Bank and ordered the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 to jointly and severally pay to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 13,34,53,308.78 with future interest at the rate of 18.25% per annum with quarterly rests from the date of filing of the suit in the High Court till realization of the said amount.The learned Presiding Officer also ordered that the hypothecated goods and book debts described in Exhibits "L" & "I" to the Original Application be sold/ realized and net sale proceeds/realization thereof be paid to the applicant Bank namely Dena Bank. He also...
Tag this Judgment!Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Union Bank of India and anr.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-2005
Reported in: III(2006)BC254
1. This misc. appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendant No.1 Standard Chartered Bank being aggrieved by the order dated 13th December, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of D.R.T.-II, Mumbai on Exhibit No. 18 in Original Application No. 3189 of 2000. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the application of the applicant Bank namely Union Bank of India for leading secondary evidence through xerox copies of 15 documents listed in the schedule annexed to the application.2. The defendants opposed this application inter alia on the ground that no case for leading secondary evidence was made out. Their resistance however was restricted to only one document viz. cheque bearing No. 842033 dated 3rd April, 1993 for Rs. 11,29,889.20, a copy of which was filed at Serial No. 1 of the schedule.3. The learned Presiding Officer after hearing both the sides and after going through the application and the reply, allowed the said application and in my view, r...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. Sihor Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd. and
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-2005
Reported in: IV(2006)BC179
1. This substantive appeal is filed by the appellant/original applicant, State Bank of Saurashtra being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18th February, 2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the D.R.T., Ahmedabad in Original Application No. 191 of 1998. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed claim of the Bank and ordered defendant Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 7 to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 32,83,825/- with costs and interest at the rate of 15 per cent, per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application till realisation. The learned Presiding Officer however dismissed claim of the Bank against the defendant Nos. 3, 4 and 6. The Bank felt aggrieved by this part of the order whereby the Bank's claim against the defendant Nos. 3, 4 and 6 was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal to that limited extent.2. I have heard Mr. Akbar Rizvi for the appellant Bank, Ms. Jariwala for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. Panesar for the respondent Nos. 4 and...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsi Industries and anr. Vs. the Ratnakar Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-2005
Reported in: II(2006)BC191
1. Both these appeals can be disposed of by this common judgment and order as parties are same and issue involved is also same.Appeal No. 114/2004 is filed by the appellants/original defendant Nos.1 to 3 M/s. Tulsi Industries and Ors. being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31.7.2002 and 11.12.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune in Original Application No. 439-P/2001, while Appeal No. 204/2005 is filed by the appellants/original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 M/s. Tulsi Industries and Anr. against the very same judgment and order whereby their counter claim came to be rejected. The appellant No. I/defendant No. 1 is a proprietary concern, which is run by the appellant No. 2/defendant No. 2. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 availed loans from the applicant Bank. The defendant Nos. 3, 4, 6 to 8 were the guarantors for repayment of the loan found due and repayable from the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. All these defendants are close relatives and members...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›