Drat Mumbai Court April 2006 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Punjab National Bank Vs. Rathi Pappins Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC15
1. By the interim order dated 4th February, 2005 passed by this Tribunal, issue of Court-fee was kept open which will have to be decided before the appeal itself is heard and finally disposed of.2. The important question which requires determination in this appeal is whether Court-fee payable on this appeal is fixed Court-fee of Rs. 250/- or Court-fee payable on ad valorem basis under Rule 8 of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1994).3. On behalf of the appellants it is argued that since there is no order against the Bank for payment of any decretal amount, a Court-fee which would be payable is Rs. 250/-, which has already been paid by the appellants. According to the learned Advocate for the appellants since by this appeal what is challenged is the show-cause notice dated 12th January, 2005 issued by the D.R.T., Aurangabad pursuant to its order dated 27th December, 2004, there was no question of payment of Court-fee...
Uco Bank Vs. Gammon India Ltd.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)BC140
1. The important question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether time or period required for obtaining certified copy of the impugned order can be excluded for the purpose of counting the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 20(3) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as RDB Act).2. Today, this appeal had been shown for admission on board. However, a preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents that there is a delay in filing the appeal and in an absence of delay having been condoned on an application made in that behalf, the appeal is not maintainable.3. The present appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 9.3.2005 passed by the DRT-II, Mumbai disallowing the original application filed by the appellants. The appeal was filed on 2.5.2005.Section 20(3) of the 'RDB Act' prescribes a period of 45 days for filing appeal from the date on which a copy o...
Jupiter Nevesh Private Limited Vs. Administrator of Specified
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)BC165
1. The short question raised in this appeal about the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal arises in the context of the following facts.The appeal has been filed against the order dated 4.2.2005 passed by the DRT-I, Mumbai rejecting the application of the appellants moved for dismissal of the original application on the ground that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the same. The respondent which is a financial institution filed original application before the DRT under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the RDB Act) for recovery of its claim pursuant to an undertaking executed by the original defendant Nos. 1 to 11, appellants herein, on 21.7.1999. It is the case of the respondent that they had advanced financial assistance to the defendant No. 12 company for meeting a part of the costs of the project for manufacturing copper and copper alloys flat products of strips and foils...
State Bank of India Vs. Heera Laxmi Contractor Pvt. Ltd.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC224
1. The main legal question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether mandatory provisions of the Arbitration Act would be applicable in a proceeding initiated under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "The SRFAESI Act").2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 2nd February, 2006 passed by the In-charge Presiding Officer of D.R.T., Nagpur rejecting the application made on behalf of the appellant Bank to refer the dispute between the parties for arbitration by virtue of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the following circumstances.3. The appellant Bank had put property mortgaged to it by one of its borrowers for auction. The respondent No. 1 was a successful bidder, who had offered to buy the said property for Rs. 10.40 crores. As the respondent No. 1 failed to pay the balance amount within stipulated period, the deposit p...
Rajiv V. Kochhar and anr. Vs. Bank of Baroda and anr.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)BC72
1. Mr. J.P. Sen for the appellants and Mr. Colabawala for the respondent Bank are present.2. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is about the right to cross-examine a witness in original application before the D.R.T.3. This appeal has been filed by the original defendant Nos. 2 and 3 against the order dated 8th February, 2006 passed by the D.R.T.-II, Mumbai rejecting the application made by the appellants/original defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in February, 2006 seeking permission to cross-examine one Mr. Anil Kumar Agrawal, Senior Branch Manager of the respondent Bank, who had filed the affidavit of evidence dated 27th December, 2004 on behalf of the respondent Bank.4. On behalf of the appellants, it is argued that when a discretion has been given to the D.R.T. to allow cross-examination of witnesses on an application made in that behalf, the Tribunal should be liberal in its approach in granting such permission. In my view, provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›