Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : II(2007)BC54
1. This appeal has been preferred by the above named defendant appellants against the order dated 16th November, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Jabalpur in case No. T.A. 1023 of 1998 whereby the prayer of the respondent Bank for taking some documents on records has been allowed.2. There is chequered history of the case, the respondent Bank had filed the above mentioned case for recovery of non-paid loan amount from the appellants. The appellants had taken the plea that they have never authorised the borrowers for mortgaging their property and as such the Bank cannot proceed with the mortgaged property as security.During the pendency of the case at the instance of the defendants including the appellants some of the Bank officials were cross-examined and then the case was closed and was fixed for judgment on 17th October, 2002 after hearing final argument. Then on 9th October, 2002 the respondent Bank had filed the petition for taking some documents on record rega...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : I(2007)BC44
2. The learned Counsel for the applicants in support of his application referred notice dated 16th August, 2000 under Section 13(2) and the notice dated 1st December, 2003 under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Ordinance, 2002. It is stated that two different loan amounts are mentioned in these notices. The amount under C.C.account No. 91 in the notice dated 16th August, 2000 is shown as nil whereas under notice dated 1st December, 2003 it is shown as Rs. 4,70,966.88. He further contended that the loan account number and the date of classification and other details of non-performing asset are not given in the notice under Section 13(2). He further contended that the notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) were issued under the Ordinance which has lost its validity after the Act coming into force.In this connection he referred the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in some other case quashing the notices issu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : IV(2006)BC79
1. This appeal has been preferred against the interlocutory order dated 23rd February, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Allahabad in M.A. No. 154/03, whereby and whereunder some directions and observations have been made regarding the compromise proposal came up before the learned Presiding Officer between the creditor Bank and the judgment debtor-borrower.2. According to the appellant, who happens to be the auction purchaser in D.R.C. proceedings namely D.R.C. case No. 299/02, such observations and directions given in the impugned order by the learned Presiding Officer, rather takes away his right as an auction purchaser. Without going into the detailed facts of the case, this much is sufficient to be stated that on the recovery certificate being issued in favour of the respondent-Bank against the respondent-borrower, D.R.C. case No.299/02 was started and in that D.R.C. proceeding mortgaged property has been sold and the appellant being the highest bidder his int...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : I(2007)BC147
1. This appeal has been preferred against the final judgment and order passed by the then Presiding Officer, DRT, Jabalpur in T.A. No.1145/98, whereby and whereunder the recovery certificate has been ordered to be issued against the appellants and in favour of the respondent Bank for realisation of Rs. 72,06,252.22 with interest, future and pendente lite, and also with cost and other usual reliefs.2. The respondent Bank had filed an original suit before the District Judge, Bhopal registered as original Suit No. 35-A of 1996 against the appellants for recovery of a sum as mentioned above stating various facts as to how the loan was taken by the appellants and the same remained unpaid. The appellant-defendants appeared in the suit and filed their written statement challenging the contentions of the Bank on 17th January, 1998. They had taken various pleas to thwart the claim of the Bank in their written statement while the suit was pending before the Tribunal, then the DRT, Jabalpur was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : IV(2006)BC121
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 23rd March, 2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Jabalpur in miscellaneous application No. 144/2001, whereby and whereunder, the restoration petition under Section 22(2)(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the RDDBFI Act) for setting aside ex pane judgment delivered on 20th September, 2000 in T.A. No. 386/98 has been rejected.2. The brief facts are that respondent-C.B.I. filed a civil suit: for recovery of Rs. 10,78,162/- along with interest, cost, etc. against respondent No. 2-Jiyaji Rao Cotton Mills and the appellant holding him jointly and severally liable for payment. While the suit was proceeding before the Court of Additional District Judge, Gwalior, the appellant, who was defendant No. 2 in the suit had appeared through one Mr. T.P.Singh, Advocate and filed petition for setting aside of exparte order passed against the appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : IV(2006)BC101
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 15th July, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Allahabad in case No. M.A. 11/04, whereby and whereunder the restoration petition filed by the appellant-defendant No. 1 for setting aside ex parte decree passed on 11th January, 2002 by the Tribunal in Original Application No. 56/2000 has been dismissed.2. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent-PNB filed the Original Application No. 56/2000 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 52,38,938.14 against three defendants, who were arrayed in the following manner: 1. Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram situated at Chowk Fatchpur through its Secretary. 2. Kshetriya Shri Gandhi. Ashram situated at Fatehpur through its Administrator, 359, Mutthiganj, Allahabad. 3. Khadi and Village Industries Commission having Regional Office at Lekhraj Market, Faizabad Road, Indira Nagar, Lucknow.3. The borrower according to the Bank was Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram unit situated at Fatehpur,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : IV(2006)BC69
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 30th April, 2003 passed by the then Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Lucknow in M.A. (T) No. 26/03, whereby and whereunder the application filed under Section 22(2)(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the RDDBFI Act) for setting aside ex parte judgment dated 29th April, 1999 in Original Application No. 89 /98 has been rejected.2. The case of the appellant is that although they took loan from the respondent Bank, but proceeding before the D.R.T., Lucknow or at D.R.T., Jabalpur was never known to them as no notices had ever been served on the appellants in Original Application No. 89/98. It is further case of the appellant that the judgment dated 29th April, 1999 was served on the appellant on 9th July, 1999 and then and then only they came to know of the proceedings in Original Application after making inquiry in the office of the D.R.T., Lucknow through th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : I(2007)BC18
1. This appeal has been preferred by the above named defendant-appellants against the order dated 5th May. 2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Jabalpur in Original Application No. 189 of 2000, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the appellants to cross-examine the respondent's witness Shri S.K. Shah as there were anomalies and alleged falsity in the affidavit with regard to the documents (vouchers filed) has been rejected.2. On previous occasion also, another such petition was filed by the appellants for cross-examination of Mr. S.K. Shah on the basis of his earlier affidavit, but the said application was rejected by the predecessor of the previous Presiding Officer vide order dated 15th January, 2002 holding that at that stage cross-examination was disallowed but at the time of final hearing, if it could be found that cross-examination was necessary, then the same would be considered in its proper perspective. Against such order dated 15th January, 2002 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : IV(2006)BC270
1. This appeal has been preferred by the above named defendant No.2-appellant against the order dated 12th July, 2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Allahabad in M.A. No. 123/03, whereby and whereunder the restoration application filed by the appellant under Section 22(2)(g) of the RDDBFT Act for setting aside exparte judgment dated 29th November, 2002 in T.A. No. 1583/2000 has been dismissed.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-Bank /i.e. Bank of India filed an Original Application against seven defendants including the appellant as defendant No. 2 for realization of Rs. 49,42,468.85 together with interest, future and pendente lite and also other usual reliefs and the said case was registered as Original Application No. 417/94 before the D.R.T., Jabalpur. After D.R.T., Allahabad was formed, the case was transferred to D.R.T., Allahabad and was renumbered as T.A. No. 1583/ 2000. In that original case from D.R.T., Allahabad notices were sent to all t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : I(2007)BC150
1. This appeal has been preferred by the above named defendant-appellants against the order dated 8th January, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Allahabad in Original Application No. 122/ 02, whereby and whereunder the prayer of amendment of the original application was allowed at the instance of the respondent No. 1-I.F.C.I. Limited.2. A consortium of financial institution namely the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed the above mentioned original application for recovery of a huge sum from the borrower Ganges Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. and the guarantors. The original application was filed on 10th April, 2002 and during the pendency of that original application, the respondent No. 1 filed a petition on 10th September, 2003 for amendment of the original application to replace the Managing Director of the borrowing company of the Official Liquidator as appointed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court on a company application for winding up of the borrower company. Admit...
Tag this Judgment!