Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : I(2008)BC6
This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 25th August, 2005 passed by the D.R.T., Lucknow in T.A. No. 333/02 for issuance of recovery certificate for a sum of Rs. 26,75,98,861/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 16% per annum with quarterly rest from the date of application after adjusting the amount, if any, already deposited + cost.1. Appellant claims to be a public charitable trust registered on 6th January, 1993 at Chennai with its branch at Ghaziabad (U.P.) through Mrs. Kuyilambal wife of late Paramasiyam and Dr. P. Mahalingam with a view to impart medical education by establishing Nursing College, etc.to provide medical help and to plan such activities of the nature of general public utility. Dr. P. Mahalingam was shown as Chairman/Managing Trustee whereas Mrs. Kuyilambal was shown as a trustee. It is said that the purpose of above Trust was to impart medical education and it was running medical colleges in the name and style of Santosh Medical College, Santosh D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : I(2008)BC1
1. This is an appeal filed under Section 20 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993.The factual matrix of this appeal is that the State Bank of Indore-respondent advanced by way of financial assistance to the respondent Chirag Metal Ltd., of which Bal Krishna Gayke is the Director. The money was not paid. Thereafter respondent-Bank filed a civil suit for recovery of money in the District Court, Indore, from where it was transferred to the D.R.T. after implementation of the Act of 1993 and this case registered as T.A. No. 892/1998.2. The Recovery Officer on the basis of recovery certificate proceeded for the auction of the mortgaged property, which is the house involved in this appeal. Present appellant-Ashok Jain is the auction purchaser.He deposited the amount of auction money. Recovery Officer by an order dated 10th June, 2005 disposed of the objection filed by Milind @ Raju Chandwaskar and another, who claimed before the Recovery Officer that they had taken on rent western portion of the first flo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : I(2008)BC24
1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 29th March, 2006 passed by D.R.T., Allahabad in T. A. No. 151 of 2000 rejecting the application moved on behalf of the appellant Bank of Baroda for obtaining the second opinion of the Hand Writing Expert of Government of India. Briefly stated the history giving rise to present appeal is that the Bank of Baroda appellant filed an application before D.R.T., Allahabad against present respondents for the recovery of money on the basis of amount advanced to the respondents. In above case the respondent denied signatures on the documents of loan produced by the Bank before the Tribunal. In above circumstances the report of Hand Writing Expert was called for by the Tribunal in connection with signatures available on the documents filed by the Bank after obtaining sample signatures. The report from the Joint Director, Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala, Uttar Pradesh, Mahanagar, Lucknow dated 26th June, 2002 was received with the conclusion that the doc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : I(2008)BC125
1. This is an appeal directed against an order dated 3rd November, 2003 passed by learned Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Jabalpur for setting aside ex parte judgment passed in T.A. No. 1155/1998 decided on 30th April, 2002. The above application for restoration was disposed of along with another application for restoration of the same judgment moved on behalf of the defendant No. 3 Alok Khanna who has not joined this present appeal.2. The respondent-Central Bank of India filed a suit for recovery before the Court of District Judge, Bhopal. The proceedings of the above suit were going on before the above Civil Court but after the enactment of RDDBFI Act i.e. Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the above suit was transferred to D.R.T., Jabalpur, where it was registered as T.A. No. 1155 of 1998.After the receipt of records the D.R.T., Jabalpur directed to issue summons/notices to the appellant and other defendants. Notices/summons were issued to the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : I(2008)BC119
1. This appeal has been filed by Mr. Kashi Nath Mishra, appellant-defendant against a judgment dated 28th April, 2005 passed by Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Lucknow directing issuance of recovery certificate against the present appellant for a sum of Rs. 14,40,324/- together with interest @ 18.10 per annum with quarterly rest from the date of the filing of the case till full realization of the dues and the Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Lucknow also directed the appellant not to transfer, alienate or create any third party interest or dispose of the mortgaged property in any manner whatsoever.2. According to the application filed by Canara Bank before D.R.T., Lucknow defendant No. 1 is a company doing business of Menthol in the name and style of Shri Krishna Industries. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were its partners and they approached to the Canara Bank for sanction of credit facility with regard to working capital and term loan and the bank sanctioned O.C.C. limit of Rs. 7.5 lacs on 26th June. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : I(2008)BC128
1. This appeal has been preferred by appellant Indo Irish Foods Ltd., against an order dated 5th October, 2006 passed by learned Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Jabalpur in Original Application No. 129/2002 rejecting the application for the amendment in the written statement.2. By moving an amendment application the appellant prayed before D.R.T., Jabalpur in Original Application No. 129 of 2002 for addition of paras 68 to 109 after the para 62 and addition in paras 43 to 46, 50 to 56, 58 and 59 of the written statement on the ground that these defences could not be taken at the initial stage when the written statement was filed. He contended that these were necessary for the just decision of the case, hence, amendment should be allowed. Written objection was filed by the bank against above amendment. According to the bank the case was fixed for final hearing and with a view to delay the proceedings, firstly the appellant took time for settlement but never came forward sincerely for settle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : III(2007)BC1
1. This appeal has been preferred against the final judgment and order dated 31st January, 2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Jabalpur in Original Application No. 72 of 2002, whereby and whereunder a recovery certificate has been ordered to be issued for a sum of Rs. 32,34,148.84 along with cost and pendente lite and future interest at the contracted rate jointly and severally against all defendant-appellants.2. The cases of the parties have been elaborately stated in the impugned judgment itself and as such it is not being reiterated in this judgment. Only the salient features are being stated below for the purpose of disposal of this appeal. The appellant No. 1 is a proprietary firm and appellant No. 2 is the proprietor of the firm and appellant Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are guarantors, who have guaranteed their entire belongings including immovable properties to secure the loan amount of the Bank. According to the respondent Bank, loan was granted to the appellant No. 1-fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : II(2007)BC36
1. This appeal was originally filed by 3 persons but as the appellant Nos. 1 and 3 died leaving the appellant No. 2 Sri Pawan Kumar Tulsiyan as surviving only legal heir. The appeal has been prosecuted by the appellant No. 2 Sri Pawan Kumar Tulsiyan alone.2. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 9th February, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Allahabad in miscellaneous appeal No. 109 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the restoration petition filed by the original appellants for setting aside the ex parte judgment dated 9th August, 2002 in T.A. No. 1261 of 2000 has been dismissed. The respondent Punjab National Bank had filed an original Suit No. 7 of 1998 against 5 persons for recovery of Rs. 35,54,409/- with future and pendente lite interest and cost and other usual reliefs. When the D.R.T. Act came into force the suit was transferred to D.R.T., Jabalpur and was renumbered as T.A. No. 952 of 1999. After the formation of D.R.T., Allahabad in the year...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : II(2007)BC46
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12th January, 2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Allahabad in miscellaneous application No. 75 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the application filed under Section 22(2)(g) of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the "RDDBFI Act") for setting aside the ex parte judgment dated 11th November, 2002 passed in T.A. No. 1223 of 2000 have been rejected.2. The respondent had filed an original suit namely Original Application No. 444 of 1990 before the Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar for decree of Rs. 15,51,137.25 against the appellants and others. In that original suit the defendants appeared and filed written statement and then due to operation of law the original suit was transferred to the D.R.T., Jabalpur and renumbered as T.A. No. 984 of 1999. After formation of D.R.T. at Allahabad the case was again transferred from Jabalpur and registered...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : 2(2007)BC29
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 28th January, 2005 passed by the leaned Presiding Officer, D.R.T.. Allahabad in case No. M.A. No. 97 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the restoration application filed by the appellants under Section 22(2)(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act (henceforth shall be referred to as "RDDBFI Act") for setting aside of the ex parte judgment passed in T.A. No. 160 of 2000 has been dismissed. The appellants were defendant Nos. 1 to 6 in the original case.2. The admitted position is that the respondent Bank had filed an original suit being original suit No. 92 of 1991 before the Civil Judge, Mirzapur for recovery of Rs. 28,75,273.58 together with future and pendente lite interest and other usual reliefs. In the original suit the appellant-defendants had put in appearance and filed their written statement and contested the case on day-to-day basis. After coming into force of the Act, the original suit was...
Tag this Judgment!