Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : II(2006)BC46
1. Both the appeals have been heard analogous as the appellant/applicant is the same in both the appeals and although the respondents/defendants were different but the nature of both the cases is the same and similar. The points involved in both the appeals are also almost same and similar.The facts of the cases are simple and as such being reiterated in nutshell as follows: The appellant/applicant had sanctioned a sum of Rs. 19 lacs together with interest @ 18% per annum with quarterly rest to respondent-defendant No. 1, of which respondent-defendant No. 2 is the proprietor. The finance was sanctioned and disbursed for the licence of liquor shop. The defendant/respondent Nos. 3 to 8 stood as guarantors to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and defendant/respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 6 had also deposited their original deed of title by way of security as equitable mortgage for the loan sanctioned and advanced. The banking documents as per banking rules were executed by the defendants-respondents in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : I(2006)BC228
1. In all these above seven appeals a preliminary issue has crept up on the objection raised by the Registrar regarding non-payment of fees under Rule 8(2) of D.R.A.T. Rules, 1994. According to the Registrar, until the fees as required under Rule 8(2) are paid, the appeals cannot be registered. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted before the Registrar that the matter be referred to the Bench as to necessity of payment of fees as per Rule 8(2) of the D.R.A.T. Rules. The contention of the Registrar was that for entertaining an appeal under Section 20 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993, fees are required to be paid by the aggrieved appellant as per Rule 8(2) of the D.R.A.T. Rules. On the other hand, a broad submission of the appellants is that all the appeals preferred are against the interlocutory orders passed by the concerned D.R.Ts. on the petition filed for some relief during the pendency of the Original Application and as such when no finality has been arrived at regarding the debts d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : II(2006)BC56
1. This appeal has been preferred by the above named appellant-Bank against the judgment and order dated 9th April, 2002 passed by the then Presiding Officer, DRT, Allahabad in case No. Original Application 240/01, whereby and whereunder the claim of recovery for Rs. 10,29,497/-,' of the appellant Bank against the respondents has been rejected.2. The respondent No. 1 is a proprietorship firm, defendant No. 2 is its proprietor and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are guarantors of the defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 is manufacturing and doing business of resin, varnish etc. at Haldwani in the district of Nainital. Defendant No. 1 through defendant No. 2 took a cash credit loan from the appellant Bank and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 stood its guarantors and all the Banking documents as per the Banking Regulation have been executed by the borrowers including mortgage of the property. During the course of business one party of Delhi approached defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for purchase of their products. Defe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : II(2006)BC253
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 4th February, 2004 passed by Mr. K.D. Khan, Presiding Officer, DRT, Jabalpur in transfer application No. 863/98, whereby and whereunder the claim of the appellant for recovery of Rs. 11,30,661/- against the defendant-respondents has been dismissed.2. There is a chequered history of the case. The erstwhile New Bank of India have been amalgamated in the appellant Punjab National Bank vide notification dated 4th September, 1993. The defendant-respondent No. 1 is a proprietary firm owned by Sunit Gupta, wife of Mr. Bharat Kumar alias Ramesh Kumar, who happens to be the defendant respondent No. 2 in the case. The defendant No. 1 for carrying her business of production of oil was granted loan of cash credit (hypothecation) of Rs. 4 lakh on 5th October, 1994 and another loan was granted to the tune of Rs. 4 lakh under cash credit (pledged) account on 10th March, 1996. Defendant No 2 stood as a guarantor of defendant No. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : II(2006)BC218
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 24th December, 2002 passed by the then Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Allahabad in Miscellaneous Application No. 95/02, whereby and whereunder the application filed under Section 22(2)(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993(henceforth shall be referred to as the RDDBFI Act) for setting aside the final order dated 21st December, 2001 passed in T.A. No. 1197 2000 has been rejected.1. At the very first instance it should be mentioned here that the petition by way of affidavit alone under Section 22(2)(g) of the RDDBFI Act was filed by the appellant No. 1/1 Manju Jaiswal alone, the other appellants, some of whom are her minor children, have never joined the appellant No. 1/1 in filing the petition under Section 22(2)(g) of the RDDBFI Act and in that way the other appellants in this appeal except that of appellant No. 1/1 have no right to prefer the appeal and in that way they are non-suited. Late ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : III(2006)BC67
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 20th November, 2003 passed by the then Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Allahabad in M.A.No. 99/03, whereby and whereunder the application filed under Section 22(2)(g) of the RDDBFI Act, 1993 (henceforth shall be referred to as the Act) for setting aside of the ex pane judgment dated 12th April, 2002 passed in T. A. No. 325/2000 has been rejected.1. There is a chequered history of the case. The appellant happens to be one of the partners of Mahavir Ji Sugar Industries. The said Sugar Industries had taken loan from the erstwhile Kashi Nath Seth Bank Limited the credit facility to the tune of Rs. 15 lacs together with interest 18% per annum with quarterly rest and also cash credit limit of Rs. 10 lacs @ same interest subject to revision by the guidelines of R.B.I. which is raised to 20% per annum with quarterly rest plus 0.75% State Tax. All the partners of the defendant No. 1 firm were made parties in the suit filed be fore the Civil Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
1. This appeal has been preferred by the above named appellant-bank against the part of the judgment and order dated March 11, 2002, passed by the then presiding officer, DRT, Jabalpur in O. A. No. 246 of 2000, whereby and whereunder the claim of the bank has been reduced to Rs. 17,57,199 from the claim of Rs. 34,17,000 and also reduced the interest from the bank rate to that of simple interest. Respondent No. 1 is a partnership firm having partners defendants Nos. 2 to 7 and Shri Vishnu Kumar Rongta (deceased) and was engaged in doing business of steel re-rolling mill and for the purpose of purchase of raw material and meeting other business needs, partners of respondent No. 1-firm applied for financial help from the appellant-bank and cash credit loan was sanctioned to the tune of Rs. 15.50 lakhs at interest of 16.5 per cent. per annum with quarterly rests together with other charges on the cash credit facility. The partners had bound them by executing several documents as required ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
1. This appeal has been preferred by the above named defendants/appellants against the order dated 31"1 August, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Allahabad, whereby and where under the prayer made by the appellants for keeping the sale of Chennai and Mumbai properties till disposal of M.A. No. 149/2003 has been rejected. The appeal is on a short point; as to whether the D.R.T., Allahabad had any jurisdiction to order for sale of the Chennai and Mumbai properties mortgaged with the respondent-bank, when no recovery certificate have been issued till that date regarding the compromise decree passed earlier and when such compromise decree was challenged by filing an application by the respondent-bank for issuance of recovery certificate regarding the original claim amount of more than Rs. 8.00 crores, when the terms and conditions of the compromise had already been failed.2. To consider the disputed point as raised in the appeal, background of the case is necessary to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
Reported in : III(2006)BC88
This appeal has been preferred by the above named appellant-Bank against the judgment and order passed by the then Presiding Officer, DRT, Allahabad in T.A. No. 1063 of 2000, whereby and whereunder the recovery claim of the appellant-Bank has been dismissed.1. On the basis of open, current and mutual account, the appellant-Bank filed a suit No. 172/95 on 13th February, 1995 before the Court of Civil Judge, Ghaziabad (U.P.) for recovery of Rs. 43,83,2737- together with pendente lite and a future interest @ 24.70/% per annum with quarterly rest and cost and it was further prayed that if the amounts are not being paid by the defendant-borrowers, the hypothecated goods and mortgaged property be sold. One Shri B.B. Talpatra was the proprietor of Talpatra Enterprises and he was enjoying various credit facilities from the appellant-Bank in the form of temporary overdraft and term loan taking credit, etc. He executed D.P. Note for Rs. 9.00 lacs on 14th June, 1979 and also executed several oth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Allahabad
1. This appeal has been preferred against the part of the judgment and order passed by the then Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Jabalpur in Original Application No. 48/1998. This appeal has been filed against the dismissal of the part of the claims of the appellant-bank towards the interest portion. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 1. The defendant-respondent No.1 is a partnership firm, of which defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners and is engaged in the business of foundry and engineering works. Defendant No.4 was also a partnership firm, but since 1991 it became a proprietary firm of defendant No.5. On request being made by the defendant No.1 through its partners, appellant bank sanctioned term loan limit of Rs. 9 lacs, cash credit limit of Rs. 10.50 lacs and bank guarantee limit of Rs. 75,000/ -. In consideration of such sanction of loan, the defendant No.1 through its partners executed requisite banking documents, on which terms and conditions were also incorporated as per...
Tag this Judgment!