Court : DRAT Delhi
Reported in : II(2003)BC94
1. This application under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was moved along with the memorandum of appeal and therein it was prayed that the appellants be exempt from depositing the amount as held due by the Tribunal below.The appeal was filed in the year 1998.2. By application No. 201/2001, additional grounds have been taken for exemption under Section 21 of the said Act. Replies have been filed and the pleadings are complete.4. This appeal was filed before Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai against the final order made by DRT, Jaipur in O.A. No. 827/96 whereunder a decree of Rs. 55,22,559 has been passed with future interest @ 17.5% p.a. with quarterly rests from 25.8.94 till realization.5. My learned predecessor, Mr. Justice V.R. Datar, Chairman of DRAT, Mumbai passed an order dated 4.10.99 wherein he directed the execution to be stayed until further orders on condition that the appellants would deposit Rs. 10 lakhs. The op...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Delhi
Reported in : II(2003)BC54
1. This appeal is against order dated 30.6.1999 passed by DRT, Delhi in O.A. No. 67/95, Indian Bank v. Ajay India and Ors.2. By the impugned order, a final order has been passed in the aforesaid O.A. and adecree of Rs. 35,57,268.94 has been passed.However, in the circumstances mentioned in affidavits filed before the Tribunal, pendente life interest has been waived and future interest has been awarded @ 12% p.a. till realization of the entire amount. By the impugned order, it has been directed that the decretal amount shall be paid in 16 equal quarterly instalments and in the event of failure on the part of the defendants, the entire amount shall become payable immediately along with contractual rate of interest. According to the impugned final order, the instalments shall commence from 1.9.1999. The appellant Bank is aggrieved with the impugned order and the same has been challenged on the following three points, namely-- 2. the pendente lite interest should not have been waived and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Delhi
Reported in : II(2003)BC59
1. This appeal is against final order dated 20.1.1999 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur in O.A.No. 493/98.2. The aforesaid order is an ex parte order as the defendants in the O.A. did not appear before the Tribunal. In this appeal as well, the respondents, who were defendants in the O.A. have not appeared despite notice.3. Under the impugned order, the appellants have been given a decree of Rs. 5,09,422.60 only as against the claim of Rs. 12,60,588.75 by granting interest @ 13.5% per annum only till date of the O.A. pendente lite and future interest @ 13.5% per annum only with quarterly rests has been granted as against the prayer @ 19.38%.4. The appellant Bank is aggrieved with the amount awarded as well as with the rate of interest awarded pendents lite and future.5. Learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal below has rejected the claim of the appellant for charging interest at a rate higher than 13.5% by observing as follows : (6) Ex. A-5 pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Delhi
Reported in : II(2003)BC102
1. This is an appeal against order dated 22.11.2001 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi in O.A. No. 102/96--Syndicate Bank v. S.R.Kapur & Sons Ltd. and Ors.2. By the impugned order, the Learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal below has sought the appellants to file prescribed fee on the counter-claim, which they are making in the aforesaid O.A. Feeling aggrieved with the order, this appeal has been filed.4. Under Sub-section (9) of Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, a counter-claim under Sub-section (8) of Section 19 shall have the same effect as the cross suit as to enable the Tribunal to pass a final order on the same Original Application both on the claim and counter-claim. The effect of this provision is that the counter-claim also becomes an application under Section 19 of the said Act. Rule 7 of the Debts Recovery Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1993 provides for quantum of fees to be paid on every application un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Delhi
1. These applications are under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for waiver of the pre-deposit and for stay of the execution, respectively.2. I take up Misc. Appeal No. 304/2001 for waiver of required deposit under Section 21 first. The grounds for waiver taken in the application are that both the parties to the appeal are Nationalised Banks; that as per facts of the case, the liability of the appellant is not in the general nature of a debt taken by individual and commercial establishments but emanates from Counter Guarantee given by the appellant to the respondent Bank and that in case the pre-condition of deposit of 75% of the amount is not waived, great prejudice would be caused to the appellant.3. The applicant also relies upon the contents of the appeal to plead for waiver of pre-deposit. This application has been opposed by the respondent Punjab National Bank.5. Facts which appear to be there are that New Bank of India gave a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Delhi
1. This is a second appeal against order dated 17.9.2001 passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi in First Appeal No. 6/2001 against order dated 20.8,2001 passed by the concerned Recovery Officer of that Tribunal.2. The appellant claims that he was in possession of a property of the judgment-debtor and has illegally been evicted from the same. He made the same grievance before DRT-II, Delhi by filing an appeal before it impugning the order of the Recovery Officer whereby he was directed to be evicted. Learned Presiding Officer of DRT in the impugned order came to a conclusion that the appeal before him had become infructuous as the appellant had already been evicted from the mortgaged property pursuant to the order of the Recovery Officer dated 20.8.2001. He, however, dismissed the appeal on merit as well saying that the appellant was admitted as a tenant in the property in question in the year 1994, after the preliminary decree for realisation of the debt had already been passed b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Delhi
Reported in : II(2003)BC8
1. This is application under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for waiver of pre-deposit of 75% required under that section. The applicant has filed an Appeal No.192/2000 against the final order dated 31.5.1999 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi in O.A. No. 339/97. In that O.A. there were seven defendants and the applicant was defendant No. 7. Rest defendants 1 to 6 have also filed an appeal against the same final order, which is Appeal No. 164/2000.2. As per the impugned order there is a decree against all the defendants. Against defendant Nos. 1 to 3 the decree is of Rs. 8,13,47,820.32 and against all the defendants there is a further decree of Rs. 1,03,86,677.76. Since the applicant here is defendant No. 7 in the said O.A., the decree against him is to the tune of Rs. 1,03,86,677.76.3. On perusal of the order, it transpires that notices were sent to the applicant/appellant and when the same could not be served normally t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Delhi
Reported in : II(2003)BC19
1. This is application under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for waiver of the pre-deposit of 75% required under that section. The applicants have filed an Appeal No. 164/2000 against the final order dated 31.5.1999 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi in OA No. 339/97. As per the impugned order there is a decree against all the appellants. A sum of Rs. 8,13,47,820.32 is to be recovered from the appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and a sum of Rs. 1,03,86,677.76 is to be recovered from all the appellants along with one Mr. Umesh Luthra, who was defendant No. 7 in the said OA. Said Mr. Umesh Luthra has filed a separate appeal bearing No. 129/2000.2. On perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that all the appellants, who were defendants in the said OA, failed to show cause before the Tribunal below. It appears that notices were sent to the appellants and when the same could not be served normally through registered post they were ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Delhi
1. Heard Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari has appeared for respondent Bank. He also made submissions.The impugned order has been passed on an application moved by the appellants under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC saying that the recovery application of the respondent Bank is barred by law. I have perused Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, which reads as follows : (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; 2. The appellants appear to rely on Clause (d) of the aforesaid rule according to which, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Delhi
1. This appeal is against order dated 28.2.2001 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of DRT-I, Delhi in O.A. No. 23/95.2. By the impugned order, Learned Presiding Officer has dismissed an application of the appellants which was moved also by others, viz., Sunder T. Vacahni, Smt. Kavita Vachani and Shri Narendra Vachani. By that application, a prayer was made that the consent decree dated 30.8.1995 passed in the aforesaid O.A. be set aside; it be declared that the compromise deed entered into between the parties was void ab initio and that the respondent Bank (State Bank of India) be directed to refund the entire amount which they had fraudulently obtained from the applicants in the guise of recovery as per the orders of the Tribunal. The grounds taken for setting aside the consent decree, were, inter alia, that the borrowings made by the applicants were ultra vires the company as the same were made on the basis of a resolution passed by circulation and after the date of the alleged...
Tag this Judgment!