Drat Mumbai Court January 2007 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.
Kanji Manji Kothari and Co. and Vs. Uco Bank
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC91
1. This appeal is filed challenging order dated 8th (sic) 2006 passed by the In-charge Presiding Officer, D.R.T.-I, Mumbai rejecting appeal/application filed under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the SRFAESI Act) on the ground of limitation. The following facts are undisputed.2. One notice dated 7th April, 2005 under Section 13(2) of the SRFAESI Act was served on the appellants by one branch of the respondent Bank and other notice dated 11th June, 2005 was served on the appellants by another branch of the respondent Bank in respect of the other account.A symbolic possession of the property in question was taken on 15th July, 2005 but the actual possession of the property was taken by the respondent Bank on 13th March, 2006 and the appeal/ application under Section 17 of the SRFAESI Act was filed before the D.R.T. on 10th April, 2006.3. It is contended on behalf of the res...
Hajiani Firoz B. Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC83
1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 25th October, 2004 passed by the Residing Officer, D.R.T.-II, Mumbai allowing Original Application of the respondent Bank to hold the appellant/ defendant No. 4 liable jointly and severally with defendant Nos. 1 to 3 for the debts of the borrower company. The appeal arises in the following circumstances.2. The respondent Bank had filed the Original Application against four defendants. Defendant No. 1 was borrower company and defendant Nos. 2 to 4 were directors and guarantors. A loan was sanctioned to the defendant No. 1 company by the respondent Bank.3. After considering the evidence, the Presiding Officer in para No. 4 of the judgment dated 4th February, 2003 has observed that the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 had executed guarantees in 1996 onwards. In para 11 of the judgment it is also observed that the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 admitted to have signed the guarantee agreement However, in the operative portion of the order only defendant No...
Jayant Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Andhra Bank
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC131
1. This appeal has been filed impugning order dated 12th September, 2006 passed by the Presiding Officer of D.R.T.-I, Mumbai rejecting application filed by the appellant company to lead secondary evidence on the basis of notarized copies of the original documents tendered along with appellant company's affidavit of evidence in support of its claim.2. Case of the appellant is that the documents mentioned in the application dated 24th January, 2006 which were kept in the appellant's factory were destroyed due to flood which took place in Mumbai on 26th July, 2005 because of heavy rainfall. Therefore, the appellant company was unable to produce original documents relied on by the company and so in order to prove its case it sought to file notarized copies of all the original documents relied on by the appellant company. That application was rejected by the Presiding Officer on the ground that the notary had not mentioned whether the notarized copies were attested and prepared on the basi...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›