Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : IV(2006)BC10
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 19th May, 2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, D.R.T. Allahabad in T.A.No. 112/2000 by which the application filed by the appellant Bank under Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC has been disposed of by passing an order under Order 38 Rule 6 of the CPC. The appellant had filed original suit before the Civil Judge, Allahabad numbering Original Application No.539/93 for realization of Rs. 1,41,74,528.37 together with interest future and pendente lite and also with cost. In the matured stage of the suit when evidence had already been adduced from the side of the appellant Bank, D.R.T. was set up and the case was transferred to D.R.T., Jabalpur and then again retransferred to D.R.T., Allahabad and was numbered as T.A. No. 112/2000. During the pendency of the suit before the Civil Judge, Allahabad, there was a petition filed in the year 2002 under Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC from the side of the appellant and there was order for atta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : II(2006)BC189
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 24th May, 2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Jabalpur in O. A.No. 47/2002, whereby and whereunder the application made by the defendant-appellants on 25th April, 2005 seeking permission for cross-examination of the Bank witnesses has been rejected.2. The respondent-Bank had filed the original application before the DRT. Jabalpur for recovery of Rs. 12,04,5567- against the defendant-appellants. On receipt of notice by the appellants they filed reply to the memo of appeal and raised various questions on limitation, legality of the mortgage and towards maintainability of the original application. They had also filed an application for considering the maintainability which was once decided in favour of the appellants but on appeal the said dismissal order of the original application was set aside by this Appellate Tribunal. Then the appellants filed the application for cross-examination of the witnesses of the Bank ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : I(2006)BC269
1. This appeal has been preferred against the final judgment and order passed in T.A. No. 941 by the then Presiding Officer, DRT, Jabalpur allowing the appellant-Bank's claim on reduced rate on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties earlier and that some amount on the basis of the compromise was already obtained/admitted from the side of the Bank.2. A very short point is involved in present appeal as to whether the learned Tribunal committed error in accepting the compromise amount for the purpose of grant of recovery certificate was legal, proper and justified, Admittedly the appellant Bank granted loan to the respondents for the purpose of Hotel business, But when the loan account became sticky then a suit was filed in the Civil Court for recovery of Rs. 1,00 crore and odd against the respondents. When the Tribunal was set up, then suit was transferred to the DRT, Jabalpur and was registered as T.A, No. 941/98. While proceeding was going on before the Tribunal, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : 3(2006)BC115
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment/order dated 17th July, 2002 passed by the D.R.T., Jabalpur in Original Application No.6/98, whereby satisfaction of the claims of the Bank have been recorded on the basis of earlier compromise being arrived at between the appellant Bank and the respondent. Before entering into merit of the appeal, there is a preliminary objection regarding limitation of the appeal. The appeal was filed in the year 2002 and notices were issued to the respondents and they also put in appearance but then amendment petition was filed by the appellant to the effect that in the memo of appeal relief portion had not been inserted inadvertently. That amendment petition came up for hearing and amendment was allowed by order dated 15th July, 2004 but then objection was raised from the side of the respondents that as the amendment was made belatedly in the year 2004, such amendment cannot be construed to be inserted in the memo of appeal which was filed in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : II(2006)BC30
1. This appeal has been preferred against the dismissal recorded by the then Presiding Officer, DRT, Jabalpur in T. A. No. 997 98. The dismissal has been recorded only on the ground of limitation and merit of the case had not been considered by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment. A civil suit was filed by the appellant Bank before the District Judge, Raisen, Madhya Pradesh, for realization of Rs. 2.00 crores and odd as the loan taken by the defendant-respondents had not been paid. The suit was filed in the Civil Court on 25.3.1995 and the same was registered as Civil Suit No. 7-B/96. While the civil suit was pending before the Civil Court, Tribunal was set up at Jabalpur and as such the same was transferred to DRT, Jabalpur, wherein it was registered as T.A. No. 99/ 98. A reference was made by the defendant company before the BIFR and such reference was registered on 26.12.1976 and for that reason as per the provisions of SICA the proceedings before the Civil Court and the Tribunal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : I(2006)BC203
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 29.9,2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Jabalpur in Misc.Application No. 9/03, whereby and whereunder the application filed by respondents 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 Act) has been allowed by setting aside the ex pane judgment passed on 21.11.2002 in O.A. No. 145/02. The appellant Bank had filed the above mentioned original application i.e. O.A. No. 145/02 before the DRT, Jabalpur in recovery of Rs. 18,82,854.57 against the applicants as far as non-payment of loan by the respondents is concerned. Notices in the O.A. were sent by registered post fixing the case on 1.10.2002 but notices were received back unserved with the postal peon's remark that the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were on pilgrimage. Then on the plea of the appellant Bank that the respondents were evading the service of notice, order was passed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : I(2006)BC200
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 14.9.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Jabalpur in Review Application No. 5/04, whereby and whereunder the review application filed by the appellant Bank under Section 22(2)(e) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 to review the order dated 14.1.2004 passed in M.A. No. 114/2001 has been rejected.2. The respondents had filed an application for setting aside ex parte judgment passed in T.A. No. 53/98 dated 16.5.2000 and the said restoration petition filed under Section 22(2)(g) of the DRT Act was allowed by order dated 14.1.2004 mainly on the reference of an order of Hon'ble Single Judge of M.P. High Court in a writ petition No.6378/2000 (State of M.P. v. DRT and Ors.). The ground of review is that the judgment of M.P. High Court on the basis of which restoration petition namely M.A. No. 114/2001 was allowed has already been challenged before the Division Bench of the M.P. Hig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : 3(2006)BC104
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Bank against the interlocutory order dated 19th March, 2000 passed by the then Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Jabalpur in T.A. No. 329/98, whereby and whereunder the petitions filed by some of the respondents, who were defendant Nos.4, 5, 7 and 10 in the original T.A. under Order 1 Rule 10(2) and Order 6 Rule 5 and Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC have been allowed and appellant Bank was asked to delete the names of defendant Nos, 3 to 11 from the plaint by filing amendment petition and for misjoinder of defendant Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8, appellant was asked to compensate them to pay Rs. 3, 000/- each to those defendants. The appellant Bank had filed the original suit for recovery of Rs. 23, 56, 281/- against all defendants including defendant No. 1 J.C. Mills Ltd. as borrower, defendant No. 2 as proprietor and defendant Nos. 3 to 11 as recipients of the goods through MTR. As per the agreement under documentary purch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : I(2006)BC182
1. All these appeals have been heard analogous and are being disposed of conjointly by this judgment. The appellant in all the cases is Central Bank of India, although respondents are different, but points in issue with regard to all the cases are the same and similar as have been submitted at the very outset by the learned Counsel of both the parties.Without giving much details about factual aspect of the cases, it must be mentioned that the impugned orders in these appeals have been passed on the basis of a petition filed by the respondent-defendants under Section 22 of the DRT Act read with Rule 18 of the DRT Procedure Rules and on the basis of principle of natural justice. The taking of loans by the respondents on factual aspects had not been denied and as such without filing of reply to the original application filed in the cases, petitions were filed as mentioned above for settlement of the claims on the basis of RBI Guidelines. The appeal has arisen out of the final order dated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : I(2006)BC180
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 2.12.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Allahabad, in M.A. No.14/04, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the appellants on 15.3.2004 referring the order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court on 5.5.2003 in Writ Petition No. 19263/03 has been dismissed.2. There seems to be a chequered history of the case. The respondent-State Bank of India filed the original application before the DRT, Allahabad for recovery of Rs. 20,64,039.44 against the appellants and the same was registered as O.A. No. 90/01. For absence of the appellant-defendants, the original application No. 90/01 was decided ex pane by the Tribunal against the defendant Nos. 1 to 7 on 22.3.2002. On 9.9.2002, the appellants preferred a 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 Act) for setting aside the ...
Tag this Judgment!