Drat Mumbai Court September 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.
Vision Organics Ltd. and ors. Vs. Bank of Baroda
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-2006
Reported in: 2(2007)BC1
1. This combined appeal has been filed in respect of the common order dated 1st March, 2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Ahmedabad disposing of three applications, one filed by the respondent Bank and two applications filed by the appellants. Normally the appellants ought to have filed three separate appeals against the common order which has disposed of three separate applications. Another anomaly in this appeal is that this appeal is filed by the three appellants i.e. the company and two directors who are also the guarantors through a common Advocate. Yet the appellant No. 2 argued the appeal in person and the Advocate for the appellants argued the matter on behalf of the appellant Nos. 1 and 3 stating that the appellant No. 2 had separated from the other two appellants who are none other than the borrower company of which he was a director and also the guarantor and the appellant No. 3 who is the wife of appellant No. 2. This seems to have been done probably with a view...
Silverline Technologies Ltd. Vs. Development Bank of Singapore and
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC192
1. A short question which arises in this appeal is whether the Recovery Officer can issue a sale certificate in respect of the immovable property which was in the possession of D.R.T. receiver and sold by a private treaty as sanctioned by the Recovery Officer. The sale certificate issued earlier was withdrawn by an order dated 17th, July, 2006 passed by the Recovery Officer of D.R.T.-II, Mumbai against which the appeal filed before the D.R.T was also dismissed on 7th August, 2006 which order is impugned in the present appeal.3. While dismissing the appeal, the D.R.T.-II has observed that if the sale is by private treaty, the sale certificate cannot be issued by the Tribunal. It is further observed that the sale certificate is issued by the Tribunal in a case in which the Recovery Officer himself undertakes to sell and not in a sale by private treaty in which the Recovery Officer has no role to play and therefore he dismissed the appeal from the facts which have been placed on record a...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›