Court : DRAT Delhi
1. This is an application under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for waiver of the required deposit under that section. The grounds taken, inter alia, are that the respondent Bank's recovery applicatioin was not maintainable against the applicant; that the applicant had retired from the borrower firm in the year 1979; that before his retirement from the borrowing firm there was only one account of M/s. Ventura with Canara Bank, South Extension Branch; that after the applicant's retirement he neither represented M/s. Ventura nor had signed any paper or document of any type regarding the loan, that the applicant had no privity of contract with the respondent Bank; that the claim of the respondent Bank is time-barred as the applicant signed neither any acknowledgement nor documents whatsoever after his retirement from the borrowing firm; that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had already decreed the claim of the Bank against the respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Delhi
1. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The appellants have urged before me that their contention that the claim application of the respondent Corporations was time barred had not been decided by the Tribunal below. On perusal of the written statement, I find that a plea of limitation was taken. Further, on perusal of the impugned order, I also find that though Learned Presiding Officer has made a mention that (he defendants have contended that the claim is time barred but there is no finding given by the Tribunal below on the lea of limitation.2. The plea of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. On perusal of the concerned O. A. filed by the respondent Corporations in the Tribunal below, it is to be found that no facts have been given by them as to how their claim is within time. In para 4 of the O.A. only the following has been stated : That the applicants further declare that the application is within the limitation prescribed under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Delhi
1. This is a second appeal against order dated 18.7.2001 passed by the first Appellate Tribunal being DRT-II, Delhi arising out of a matter in execution proceedings of the decree passed by DRT in O.A. No. 195/95 Punjab & Sind Bank v. Avtar Singh and Anr.2. Before the Recovery Officer, the appellant had made an objection that he was bonafide purchaser in possession of the property and, therefore, the same cannot be sold in the aforesaid execution proceedings. The Recovery Officer by his order dated 29.5.2001 dismissed the objections saying that the sale deed in favour of the objector was void ab initio being in contravention of the interim orders of the Hon'ble High Court. Being aggrieved with that order, the objector filed appeal before the concerned DRT.3. By the impugned order, DRT-II has rejected the appeal filed by the objector against order dated 29.5.2001 passed by the Recovery Officer.In the appeal before DRT-II, Delhi in addition to the request for setting aside the Recove...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Delhi
1. This appeal has been filed by one of the defendants in O. A. No.121/99 pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur against order dated 17.7.2001 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of that Tribunal.2. The impugned order has been passed on an application dated 20.2.2001 moved by the appellant, a copy of which has today been filed by the appellant. By that application the appellant requested the Tribunal below to direct the respondent Bank to pay Rs. 1,56,373 and to dismiss the Original Application filed by the respondent Bank and for award of heavy cost of Rs. 50.000/-. The grounds for making the aforesaid prayers had been stated by the appellant in that application which inter alia are that after the appellant compromised the claim under the respondent Bank's application he came to know about the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India for recovery of dues relating to Non-performing Assets of public sector Banks; that at the time when the compromise was entered in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Delhi
1. This Misc. Appeal has been filed by defendant No. 6 in O.A. No.84/2000 pending before DRT, Chandigarh against order dated 4.7.2001 passed by DRT, Chandigarh. The impugned order has dealt with other matters as well but this appeal relates to only that part of the order which was passed on appellant's application for permission to cross-examine the witnesses of the applicant Bank, a copy of which is at page 95 of the Paper Book.2. The impugned order relating to the aforesaid application of the appellant may be reproduced as under : "After hearing Counsels for the parties at length and after going through the material on record, I am of the opinion, whether defendants may be permitted to cross examine the witnesses or not, it can only be decided at the time of final arguments. At this stage, there does not appear any ambiguity in the statement of witnesses vis-a-vis filed by applicant Bank which require clarification by putting the witnesses to cross-examination. However, after comple...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Delhi
1. These three appeals were filed with a common Memorandum of Appeal against a common order dated 30th April, 2001 passed on a common prayer for stay of proceedings in all the three Original Applications, namely, 572 97, 573/97 and 574/97.2. By the impugned order the prayers of all the defendants in the aforesaid three suits for stay of the proceedings in the C. As. have been negated. Feeling aggrieved the defendants in the aforesaid O. As.have filed these appeals.2. Since the impugned order is a common order in the aforesaid three O.As. for recovery, all these three appeals are being decided by this one common order.3. The short question involved in all these appeals is as to in the three claim applications who is the principal borrower and who are the guarantors. According to the appellants, M/s. Peacock Industries Limited is the principal borrower in all the three claim applications whereas the plea of the respondent Bank is that M/s. Popular Packing Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Rajasthan Chemi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Delhi
Reported in : II(2003)BC22
1. This appeal has been filed against order dated 7.8.2000 in O.A. No.712/95--The Benaras State Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Appu Amusement Machines Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.2. By the impugned composite order the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal below has allowed three interim applications of the respondent Bank, the first filed on 22.7.1996 for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased defendant No. 3 in the O.A., the second filed on 16.4.1998 for setting aside the abatement and the third filed on 21.8.1998 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.3. The undisputed facts of the case relating to the aforesaid applications are that defendant No. 3, namely, Group Capt. V.C.Mankotia died during pendency of the case; that by the time of his death notices on the defendant had not been served that notices were directed to be served through publication in newspaper and the next date fixed before the Tribunal below was 15.3.1996; that on that date i.e. 15.3.1996, the Counsel appearing for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Delhi
1. This appeal is against orderdated 16.7.1998 passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur in O.A. No. 375/1997--Union Bank of India v.Rathambhor Wines and Beer Wholesale & Ors..2. By the impugned order a decree has been passed for Rs. 17,81,655/- along with cost of the proceedings and future interest @ 10.5% per annum with quarterly rests from 12.5.1997 till realization against defendants 1 to 4 in the Original Application. It is further directed that the applicant Bank would be entitled to recover the aforesaid amount by the sale of mortgaged property of defendants 5 to 9 also.3. This appeal has been filed only by defendant Nos. 2 and 3. Rest of the judgment debtors do not appear to have challenged the impugned order. The undisputed facts are that defendants 2, 3 and 4 in the name of defendant No. 1 in the O.A. had sought an overdraft facility with an upper limit of Rs. 3.75 lakhs from Union Bank of India branch office at Baran (Rajasthan) and in lieu of that facility, deposited on...
Tag this Judgment!