Drat Mumbai Court May 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.
Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-26-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)BC148
1. The main questions that are raised in this appeal are firstly whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the validity of the lease created in favour of the respondent No. 1 Corporation and secondly whether the creation of lease is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens.2. This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 5.8.2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of DRT, Nagpur partly allowing the application filed by the respondent No. 1 under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and directing the appellant Bank to deliver physical possession of the property to the respondent No. 1 on payment of rent and giving undertaking to pay the monthly rent in advance to the Bank.3. The brief facts, which gave rise to the present appeal are as follows: The respondent No. 2 M/s. Kamakshi Hotels (P) Ltd. had taken loan from the appellant Bank by executing documents like term loan agreem...
Shantilal Ratanchand Lunkad and Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-12-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)BC175
1. Both these appeals can be disposed of by this common judgment as parties are common and issues arising for decision are also common. In both these appeals, an order dated 27.8.2003 passed by the Recovery Officer and confirmed by the DRT, Pune on 14.10.2003 allowing the application made under Section 25(b) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred as the RDB Act) are under challenge. By the impugned orders, the appellants have been ordered to be detained in civil prison for a period of six months, in the following circumstances.2. The respondent Bank had filed original applications against the appellants who are the borrowers and guarantors in respect of the loan granted by the respondent Bank. After the decree was passed against the appellants, the respondent Bank had made an application on 21.3.2003 under Section 25(b) of the RDB Act before the Recovery Officer for taking action against the appellants for nonpayment of the dec...
Bajaj Electricals Ltd. Vs. Canara Bank and anr.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-08-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)BC144
1. The short but important question, which arises in this appeal for decision is about the appropriation of a sum of Rs. 7,67,821/- which was deposited under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the "RDB Act').2. The respondent Bank had filed original application for recovery of debt from the appellants, which was decreed by the DRT. Against the said decree, the appellants had come in appeal before this Tribunal, which was dismissed by an order dated 14.1.2005. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 7,67,821/- being seventy-five per cent of the debt payable by the appellants to the respondent Bank under Section 21 of the RDB Act.After the said amount was deposited, it was invested in FDR in the name of the Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai with the respondent Bank on 25.2.2004.Now respondent Bank has filed praecipe in the appeal seeking directions for appropriating the a...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›