Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : I(2008)BC113
1. By filing Appeal No. R-735/06 the order dated 5th October, 2006 passed by the D.R.T., Lucknow in Original Application No. 41/05 is under challenge at the instance of Modi Industries Limited and others, appellant-defendants (hereinafter to be called as defendants in this appeal for the purposes of this judgment). By order dated 5th October.2006, learned D.R.T. observed that vide order dated 2nd August, 2002 passed by B.I.F.R. the required permission under Section 22(a) of S.I.C.A. has been granted to the Bank applicant-respondent (hereinafter to be denoted as plaintiff in this appeal for this judgment). In this appeal the learned D.R.T. directed to continue the proceedings of Original Application No. 41/05 declining to stay the proceedings as prayed by the defendants, who had also prayed for dismissal of the suit for want of permission under Section 22(1) of the S.I.C.A. In Appeal No. R-769/07 feeling aggrieved by an order dated 4th December, 2006 passed by the D.R.T., Lucknow in T....
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : I(2008)BC99
1. In this appeal the order dated 13th December, 2005 passed by the D.R.T., Lucknow is under challenge. This order was passed in T.A. No.805/02 accepting the pleas of the present respondents for the payment and in full satisfaction under O.T.S. Scheme (3rd Scheme) issued by the R.B.I.2. Briefly stated the history giving rise to this appeal is that one suit No. 1526/ 96 was filed before the Civil Court of Ghaziabad for recovery of Rs. 12,16,380.25. By virtue of enactment of RDDBFI Act, 1993, the above suit was transferred to D.R.T., Allahabad where it was given a new number as T.A. No. 1045/2000. After establishment of D.R.T.at Lucknow, the above T.A. was transferred to D.R.T., Lucknow. During the proceedings the appellant Bank and the respondents compromised the case for a sum of Rs. 16.12 lacs. The respondents deposited a sum of Rs. 2,66,120/- with the Bank and the matter was decided on the basis of above compromise. According to the appellant Bank after compromise, the respondents c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : I(2008)BC86
1. In this appeal order dated 10th October, 2006 passed by D.R.T., Allahabad in M.A. No. 12/06 is under challenge.2. In short the appellants have contended that the respondent Bank filed an Original Application No. 133/01 against them and on 29th November, 2002 that Original Application was decided ex parte by the Tribunal. An application for recalling the ex parte order dated 29th November, 2002 under Section 22(2)(g) of the RDDBFI Act, 1993 had been filed by the appellants. On the basis of above ex-parte decree, the recovery proceedings were taken up against the appellants. The appellants pleaded that they were making efforts to compromise with the Bank by submitting a proposal for payment of the amount of ledger balance accordingly on the basis of information given by the Bank the total amount payable was communicated to be Rs. 5,01,073.36 including legal expenses, etc. The proposal given by appellants to the Bank was approved. According to the appellants they were allowed 90 days'...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : I(2008)BC105
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an order and judgment dated 18th July, 2005 passed by D.R.T., Allahabad in Original Application No. 141/2001 allowing the application for issuance of the recovery certificate for Rs. 15,36,648/- against the defendants along with interest, etc. The appellant Mohd. Hussain claimed himself to be the purchaser of the property, which is said to have been mortgaged in connection with the loan in question advanced by Bank of India respondent No. 1 in favour of Majestic Engineering Corporation.Respondent Nos. 2/1 to 2/11 are said to be the legal heirs of Abdul Rasheed who was defendant No. 1 and has died. Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were said to be the guarantors for above loan. The case of the appellant is that he is neither borrower nor the guarantor and has purchased the house in question situated in Sarai Gate, Rampur for value and after due care. According to the appellant the property in question was not mortgaged with the respondent Ba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : I(2008)BC93
1. This appeal has been preferred against an order dated 16.4.2007 passed by the DRT, Allahabad vacating the stay order passed by it on 3.1.2007 for the maintenance of status quo of the property said to have been mortgaged. Also while passing the impugned order, the DRT had directed appellant to deposit one lac more and by means of an application dated 29.1.2007 moved by the appellants had requested for keeping the condition of deposit of amount of Rs. 1.00 lac more in abeyance, but it was also turned down.2. The short questions, which arise out of the impugned order in this appeal are: whether the objection said to have been preferred to the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of the Financial Assets and Enforcement of the Security Interest Act, 2002 was disposed of before taking up proceedings for the recovery of the amount under the aforesaid enactment, second question, which has been raised, is whether the property said to have been mortgaged...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : I(2008)BC134
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 19th July, 2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Jabalpur in Appeal No.19/2006 which arose against an order dated 8th May, 2006 passed by the Recovery Officer-I, D.R.T., Jabalpur rejecting objection filed on behalf of the appellant for setting aside the sale.2. In brief the present appellant preferred an objection against execution proceedings of Execution Case No. 108/2004, which was initiated by the respondent Bank on the basis of acertificate of recovery issued in pursuance to a judgment dated 7th October, 2004 passed in Original Application No. 51/2002 for the recovery against the appellant. When the recovery proceedings were taken-up after observing required formalities the proclamation of terms of auction etc. were settled. The present appellant filed above objection before Recovery Officer alleging therein that the terms of auction settled mechanically without application of mind committing several irregularit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : I(2008)BC155
1. R-615/2005 is an appeal filed by Shri Shrimal Plantation praying for setting aside an order dated 13th October, 2005 passed by the D.R.T., Jabalpur in review application No. 2/2002, wherein prayer was for setting aside the judgment dated 8th March, 2002 passed in Original Application No. 188/2000. The other Appeal No. R-616/2005 has been filed by the same appellant challenging the judgment dated 8th March, 2002 passed by the D.R.T., Jabalpur in Original Application No.188/2000. In Appeal No. R-616/2005 there is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act also requesting to condone the delay of 1290 days in filing this appeal on the ground that review application was filed before the Tribunal, but the same was dismissed on 13th October, 2005, against which order another appeal has been preferred apart from this appeal.2. Briefly stated the history giving rise to these two appeals is that the respondent Bank filed Original Application No. 188/2000 for recovery of Rs. 82,92,8...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : I(2008)BC147
1. This appeal arises out of a judgment dated 4th June, 2002 passed by Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Jabalpur (M.P.) in T.A. No. 362 of 1998, Bank of India v. Gautam Carbon Paper Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd., issuing recovery certificate for a sum of Rs. 41,56,412.09 and interest as per terms of the contract from 15th May, 1992 till the date of realization, declining to accept the plea of Bank for equitable mortgage.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal as per memo of this appeal are that the appellant Bank of India filed a Civil Suit No.83/1992 against the defendant-respondents for recovery of a sum of Rs. 41,56,412.09 along with interest and costs before the Court of District Judge, Gwalior (M.P.). This suit was transferred to D.R.T., Jabalpur after the constitution of D.R.Ts. and there it was registered as T.A.No. 362/1998. The Bank had pleaded in the above suit that the respondent No. 1 Gautam Carbon Paper Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd. on its request was provide...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : IV(2007)BC1
1. These are two appeals wherein the same point of law is involved and their facts are almost the same, therefore, both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The Appeal No. 589/2005 has been filed by its appellants Praful Steels and another against a judgment dated 11th August, 2005 passed in T.A. No. 565/2000 by D.R.T., Allahabad, whereas the Appeal No. 591/2005 arises out of a judgment dated 11th August, 2005 passed in T.A. No.532/2000 by D.R.T., Allahabad.3. Brief history giving rise to Appeal No. 589/2005 is that its appellant No. 1 was a proprietorship firm doing its iron and steel trading business at Kanpur. This firm approached respondent No. 1 -Bank in the year 1990 for providing cash credit facility which was sanctioned with a limit of Rs. 3 lacs. An agreement of hypothecation of stock as usual was executed in favour of the respondent Bank. In March, 1994 one person posing himself to be Moolchand Jaiswal along with one other Harish Chand laiswal appro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : I(2008)BC32
1. The respondent No. 1-Bank of Baroda instituted an Original Application No. 175 of 2002 under Section 19 of the RDDBFI Act, before D.R.T., Jabalpur for recovery of Rs. 38,61,829.33. The appellant-defendants contested the above Original Application filing their written statement challenging the claim of the respondent No.1-Bank. For the actual short controversy, raised in this case, we need not give the details of pleadings of both parties. In the written statement apart from other pleadings a pleading was raised that the officers of the Bank have acted in most mala fide and fraudulent manner on account of which irreparable loss had been sustained by the appellant-defendants as because of illegal and unauthorised fraudulent transfer of a sum of Rs. 10 lacs from cash credit account to the term loan account. The appellant-defendants pleaded that they had filed criminal complaint case against the Bank officer under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code which was pending before competent ...
Tag this Judgment!