Drat Mumbai Court July 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.
Rama Steel Industries and anr. Vs. Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC122
1. Since both these appeals raise common question of law they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. A short question that arises in these appeals is whether the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SRFAESI Act") would be applicable to the Co-operative Banks which are registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.3. The respondent bank which is a Co-operative Bank had initiated an action against the appellants under the provisions of Section 101 of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and got the recovery certificate issued thereunder. Thereafter the respondent bank took an action under the provisions of the SRFAESI Act against the appellants which was challenged by the appellants by filing an appeal/application under Section 17 of the SRFAESI Act in the D.R.T.Nagpur. During the pendency of said appli...
S. Arunkumar Vs. Bank of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC108
1. This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 5th April, 2006 passed by the Presiding Officer of the D.R.T.-II, Mumbai rejecting an application filed by the appellant for setting aside an ex parte decree passed against the appellant on the ground that the application was time-barred in the following circumstances: The respondent Bank had filed an Original Application for recovery of debts due from the appellant and other defendants. The appellant was the original defendant No. 2. He and the defendant No. 3 were the guarantors and the Directors of the appellant No. 1 company. The appellant's wife was impleaded as the defendant No. 4 being the guarantor and the mortgagor of the flat. The summons of the Original Application were sought to be served on the appellant by registered post on the residential address of the appellant which was returned with a postal endorsement 'unclaimed'. As per the practice of the D.R.T. the copy of the judgment and order was sent on the address ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›