Court : DRAT Delhi
Reported in : I(2008)BC50
1. HMT Limited (a public sector undertaking) has filed this appeal against judgment dated 20.8.2004 passed by DRT-III, Delhi in O.A.169/2002. The O.A. had been filed by the respondent herein-The Nainital Bank Ltd. (applicant in O.A.) for the recovery of Rs. 1,13,11,593/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 16.5% per annum with half yearly rests as also costs. The DRT allowed the O.A. directing the defendant (appellant herein) to pay the said amount of Rs. 1,13,11,593/- along with costs, pendente lite and future interest @ 10% per annum with effect from 5.8.2002 (date of filing of the O.A.). The appellant/defendant is aggrieved thereby and has lodged this appeal.2. The facts may be stated shortly: A sum of Rs. 50 lakh was invested by the respondent-Bank (applicant in O.A.) in HMT Bonds in New Delhi and a sum of Rs. 49.75 lakh, after adjusting upfront discount of Rs. 25,000/-, was deposited with the appellant/defendant. The appellant/defendant issued Bond Certificate (Unsecur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)141CompCas423NULL
1. This is an appeal by the Punjab National 1 Bank against the order dated September 25, 2002, passed by the DRT, Chandigarh, rejecting its application purportedly made under Section 19(25) read with Section 26(2) of the RDDBFI Act, 1993, for the amendment of recovery certificate made in pursuance of a decree in O.A. No. 144 of 1998 passed by the DRT, Jaipur.2. The facts are that O. A. No. 144 of 1998, in question was decided by the DRT, Jaipur, by judgment dated October 27, 1999. It was decreed against the concerned defendants/respondents for recovery of Rs. 4,44,60,002.08. Recovery certificate was drawn and issued to the Recovery Officer, DRT, Jaipur. The bank made an application, the order passed whereupon has given rise to this appeal, praying for suitable amendment in the recovery certificate along with the amendment of relief clause of the judgment and the order passed by the DRT.According to the bank, there was clerical error in the recovery certificate as the same was not in c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)141CompCas657NULL
1. The Punjab National Bank has filed this appeal against the final order dated March 9, 2006, passed by the DRT-III, Delhi, in T.A. No.382 of 2002 (O.A. No. 19 of 1997-DRT-II, Delhi).2. The relevant facts may be stated shortly. The appellant-bank filed O.A. in question against five defendants/respondents herein for the recovery of Rs. 15,57,525 with pendente lite and future interest at 17.34 per cent, per annum with quarterly rests along with costs.Respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 was the sole proprietorship concern owned and controlled by respondent No. 2/defendant No. 2. Respondent No. 3/defendant No. 3 was the partnership firm consisting of respondents Nos. 4 and 5/defendants Nos. 4 and 5 as partners. The appellant herein--bank sought the relief of recovery against all the defendants.3. Respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5/defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were having their current account No. 2131 with the bank. Respondent No.2/defendant No. 2 as sole proprietor of respondent No. 1/defendant No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)141CompCas323NULL
1. The dispute in this Miscellaneous Appeal relates to Shop No. 42, Palika Market, Near Information Centre, Bhilwara (Rajasthan). The necessary background facts are narrated for the sake of clarity.2. The respondent-bank herein filed O.A. No. 576 of 1998 against five defendants, namely, M/s Rajat Fabrics (Pvt.) Ltd., Mr. Gyanmal Pangaria, Mrs. Shobha Pangaria, Mr. Sohan Lal Pangaria and Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd., for the recovery of Rs. 67 lakhs and odd. Mr. Gyanmal Pangaria and his mother Mrs. Shobha Pangaria (defendants Nos. 2 and 3 respectively in the O.A.) were the directors of the main borrower--M/s. Rajat Fabrics (Pvt.) Ltd., which was a company registered under the Indian Companies Act.The defendants Nos. 2 and 3 had given personal guarantee against the loan facilities availed of by the defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 Mr.Gyanmal Pangaria had also mortgaged the property in question (belonging to HUF whereof he was the karta) as secur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)141CompCas90NULL
1. The appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated April 12, 2004, passed by the Tribunal below dismissing the application made by him purporting to be under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC read with Section 22(1)(e) of the RDDBFI Act, 1993, for impleadment of M/s.Satnam group as a defendant in O.A. No. 236 of 2001 in question. None has appeared for the respondents in the appeal.A few facts necessary for the decision of the appeal are recorded. The O.A. in question has been filed by respondent No. 1 herein (IDBI) against M/s. Sterling Flatware Ltd., defendant No. 1/respondent No. 2 herein (principal borrower), Mr. P.K. Gupta, defendant No. 2/appellant herein (guarantor), IFCI Ltd., defendant No. 3/respondent No. 3 and ICICI Ltd., defendant No. 4/respondent No. 4 for the recovery of Rs. 11 crores and odd. The appellant herein/defendant No. 2 was the guarantor for the repayment of loan. Defendant No. 1/respondent No. 2 created first charge by way of joint mortgage in favour of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)141CompCas209NULL
1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the order dated October 1, 2003, passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh, dismissing the Miscellaneous Application No. 188 of 2003 for setting aside the ex parte decree dated March 27, 1996. The said application was made under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.Appellants Nos. 1 and 2 herein, namely, Mr. Jit Singh and Mr. Jaspal Singh were defendants Nos. 7 and 4 respectively in the suit in question whereas appellant No. 3, Mr. Baldev Singh (son of appellant No. 1 Mr.Jit Singh) was allowed to be impleaded by the hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide order dated September 25, 2006 in C. M. No.13433-CII of 2003 in Civil Revision No. 5233 of 2003.The relevant facts are stated hereunder. The first respondent-Central Bank of India had filed Suit No. 182 of 1993 for the recovery of Rs. 12 lakhs and odd against the defendants including appel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Delhi
Reported in : I(2008)BC60
1. Both these Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of the same O.A. 1/2004 of DRT-III, Delhi and have been filed by the applicant of the said O.A., i.e., Oriental Bank of Commerce against the respondents (defendants in O.A.). So, they can be conveniently decided together.2. Miscellaneous Appeal 68/2005 is directed against the order dated 27.1.2005 passed by the Tribunal below dismissing LA. 342/2004 moved by the Oriental Bank of Commerce. The said I.A. 342/2004 had been made by the Bank under Section 19(11) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to exclude the counter-claim of the defendants from the O.A. and to direct the counter-claim to be disposed of by an independent order.3. The Bank has filed the O.A. in question for the recovery of Rs. 40 lakh and odd against the respondents herein (defendants in O.A.). They put in appearance before the DRT and filed written statement with a counter-claim for Rs. 9,90,107.68...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Delhi
Reported in : I(2008)BC58
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 6.10.2006 passed by the Tribunal below on I.A. No. 254/2006 in O.A. No. 121/2004. The O.A.in question has been filed by the respondent No. 1-Bank against the appellants/defendants and others for the recovery of certain amount.The other defendants in the O.A. are respondents 2 to 12 herein.2. The respondent-Bank also proceeded under the SRFAESI Act against the defendants and took physical possession of certain property after dispossessing the appellants/defendants. The respondent-Bank then filed an application to withdraw the O.A. as it decided to proceed under the SRFAESI Act. The application of the Bank was decided by the Tribunal below by order dated 5.7.2005 and the O.A. was allowed to be withdrawn.The appellants challenged the order dated 5.7.2005 before this Appellate Tribunal by means of a miscellaneous appeal. When that appeal came up for hearing on 18.4.2006, it was represented by the respondent-Bank that they were willing to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Delhi
Reported in : I(2008)BC67
1. The appellant is M/s. Inrays through Mr. B.S. Kumar. The 1st respondent is the State Bank of India and the 2nd respondent is Mr.Gurnam Singh, the auction purchaser. The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 31.8.2006 passed by the Tribunal below in MA No. 71/2004 arising out of O.A. No. 757/2000. There, M/s. Inrays figured as applicant/defendant No. 1/JD No. 1 and Mr. B.S. Kumar as applicant No.2/defendant No. 2/JD No. 2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal below dismissed their application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC for setting aside ex parte judgment and recovery certificate dated 24.6.2004 passed in OA No. 757/ 2000. In prayer, however, the appellant has sought the setting aside of the impugned order dated 31.8.2006 as well as the order of the Recovery Officer dated 27.9.2005 (whereby the auction sale was confirmed).2. The relevant facts may be stated briefly. The State Bank of India, respondent-Bank herein filed recovery suit before the Senior Sub-Judge, Faridabad for recove...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Delhi
Reported in : I(2008)BC75
1. The order impugned in this appeal is one dated 5.1.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chandigarh in Appeal 5/2005. The appeal before him had been filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein against the order dated 16.12.2004 passed by the Recovery Officer in R.C. 555/2001 issued pursuant to the order in O.A. 481/ 2001 (old DRT, Jaipur O.A.No. 21/99). The appeal was allowed by the Tribunal below whereby the sale of the property in question to the appellant herein was set aside.2. The relevant facts may be stated briefly. The respondent No. 4 herein-Punjab National Bank (applicant in O.A.) had filed O.A. before DRT, Jaipur against M/s. Amrit Cellulose Ltd. (respondent No. 5 herein) and its directors/guarantors including respondents 1 to 3 for the recovery of Rs. 2 crores and odd. Managing Director of the company, namely, Mr. J.S. Sethi died after the O.A. was filed and the respondents 1 to 3 herein were his legal heirs, too, besides being guarantors/mortgagors. The O.A. was allowed ...
Tag this Judgment!