Court : DRAT Kolkata
Reported in : I(2008)BC27
1. This one is only a transfer application by the petitioner-debtors praying for withdrawal of Original Application No. 44 of 2002 that entails a very large amount of money to the tune of Rs. 1,43,91,840.25.2. The said Original Application No. 44 of 2002 pending for disposal before Mr. Thyagaraja Naidu, Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Cuttack.3. The prayer of the petitioners is to render substantial justice to the parties by withdrawing the said Original Application No. 44 of 2002 from the said Presiding Officer of the D.R.T., Cuttack and transfer the same to any other Tribunal convenient to all the parties.4. It appears, the main reasons attributed by the petitioners are "bias" on the part of the Presiding Officer of the D.R.T. in passing certain orders in the course of the proceeding and denial of natural justice to the petitioners.5. Some of the facts/orders highlighted in the course of submission made on behalf of the petitioners by the learned Advocate to complain of 'bias' on the par...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
Reported in : I(2008)BC40
1. The matter relates to an application under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 ('the RDDBFI Act', for short).2. The appellant No. 1 is a company of flour mills and appellant No. 2 is its Managing Director who borrowed money from the respondent-Bank by deposit of title deeds in respect of immovable properties situated at Malda. The business failed due to reasons beyond their control and the company closed down. The appellants wanted the respondent-Bank to sell the secured properties for liquidating the claim.3. Proceedings for recovery of debt in Original Application No. 29 of 2004 before the D.R.T. ensued. That still pendsan admitted fact.4. However, sale of the secured properties to liquidate the loan was underway and in August, 2005, the Tribunal proceeded to confirm sale of the assets in favour of Sarada Cereals Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No. 2) for a sum of Rs.'71.51 lacs in spite of an offer of Rs. 80 lacs being available before the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
Reported in : I(2007)BC156
1. The matter relates to an appeal from an interlocutory order. It all started by a suit by the appellant-Bank way back in 1998 for realisation of the loan dues to the tune of Rs. 1,16,74,310.61 with interest against the respondent, Elbird Hatchery (P.) Ltd. It culminated in the final order being passed by the Tribunal below on 23rd March, 2003. The outstanding amount due as stood on 31st May, 2003 was Rs. 2,07,81,872/-.2. Recovery proceeding started in R.P. No. 74 of 2003. Recovery Officer directed to deposit of Rs. 32 lakh by 30th June, 2004. The deposit was not made resulting in issuance of warrant arrest against the respondents. The respondents instead of filing appeal filed review application before the DRT which was entertained by the Tribunal. The Hon'ble Orissa High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 5656 of 2003 by order dated 10th July, 2003 granted liberty to file appeal within one month. The respondent did not file the appeal and the final order passed on 21st March, 2003 beca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
Reported in : 2(2007)BC23
1. The appeal by the Bank arises out of judgments and orders passed by the D.R.T., Guwahati, Assam, on 24th October, 2002 and 19th December, 2002. For the purpose of this appeal, however, the grievance of the appellant-Bank primarily stems from the judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 24th October, 2002. By that order though the counter-claim of the defendant-respondents was dismissed by the Tribunal for lack of evidence, the appellant was also deprived of the realization of its full claim with interest since the application by the Bank was only partly allowed. The learned Tribunal below held that the appellant-Bank was only entitled to a certificate for a sum of Rs. 8,76,328.58 only with interest pre-suit at the rate of 16.5% per annum with quarterly rest and pendente lite as well as post-suit @ 12.5% per annum till realization. The reasons for the decision made by the learned Tribunal are analytical and compact and demonstrates proper application of mind in the matter of reducti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
Reported in : I(2007)BC152
1. The matter relates to an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal and an application under Section 21 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993.2. Let us take up the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.3. The impugned order is dated 17th February, 2004 by DRT, Guwahati, and the appeal was filed on 16th November, 2005.4. Apparently, there has been a long delay in filing this appeal by the appellant, Mrs. Punam Wang Khem Singh Bhatia. (b) The appellant came to know of the entire proceeding of the case and the impugned judgment and order only in the middle of October, 2005 and she obtained certified copy on 18th October, 2005. (c) Her husband is in the army and her brothers who are contesting the proceeding as parties thereto did not inform her the same. (d) She did not even know that she was a party to the proceedings or the case, no notice was served upon her by the Tribunal. (e) In addition to that, her brother in writing i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
Reported in : I(2007)BC158
1. The matter relates to an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing this appeal. Heard learned Advocates for both sides.2. The hearing of this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has entailed affidavits, supplementary affidavit and affidavits-in-opposition.3. The impugned judgment and order by the DRT-II, Kolkata, was passed on 25th August, 2005 and the instant appeal was filed on 14th December, 2005.4. The main reasons for the delay in filing this appeal, as sought to be explained by the petitioner-appellants may be summed up as follows: (a) Time taken in the proceeding initiated by the appellants in the matter of the revisional application in the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta, against the impugned judgment and order. (b) Handing over papers, consultations and conferences with the learned Advocate on record and change of learned Advocate, reliance upon the Advocate on record, to file the appeal as expeditiously as possible, bu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
Reported in : I(2007)BC178
1. The matter relates to an application by an appellant under Order 33 of the CPC for exemption from paying the requisite appeal fees treating him as an indigent person.2. The long and short of the reasons that are made out to make this application for such exemption of fees is this.3. The applicant/appellant was a managing partner of a registered partnership firm namely, "North Bengal Pharmaceutical Works" and he is also a technically qualified entrepreneur. He started his business well being encouraged by the Directorate of Cottage and Small Scale Industries, Government of West Bengal, to set up this pharmaceutical unit of industry financed by the West Bengal Financial Corporation (term loan), the District Industries Centre, Malda (seed money) and State Bank of India (working capital). His business was a need-based fund small scale unit and he was to execute the Government orders within due time. It is alleged that due to deliberate negative attitude of respondent No. 1-Bank for rel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
Reported in : I(2007)BC173
1. The matter relates to an application by the petitioner/appellant, Coal India Ltd., under Section 21 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993, praying for waiver of the mandatory pre-deposit of the 75% of the amount due on debt together with an application for stay.2. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner/appellant filed this appeal against an order passed ex parts against the petitioner and others on 10th May, 1999 whereon the learned Tribunal below had recorded the findings that none of the defendants appeared to contest the suit despite service of notices and paper publication and therefore the suit was taken up for ex parte hearing. It was further recorded that the conduct of the defendants in not appearing to contest the suit before the Tribunal was indicative of the fact that they did not dispute the claim of the applicant-Bank and that, therefore outstanding claim of the applicant-Bank was allowed ex parte with costs alongwith interest pendents l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
Reported in : I(2007)BC40
1. The matter relates to an application under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, which shall be referred to hereinafter as "the RDDBFI Act" for short.2. The applicant-appellant, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has assailed the impugned order of the D.R.T. dated 3rd February, 2005 which had refused to set aside the ex parte order. It had nothing to do as such with the merits of the main case with regard to the determination of debt. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate for the applicant that Section 21 of the RDDBFI Act applies to those appeals where order is made determining the debt either under Section 19 of the RDDBFI Act or under Rule 12(5) directing the defendant to pay the amount determined. It has been further submitted that it was an application simplicitor for setting aside the ex parte order and the instant appeal has been filed only by challenging the impugned order and, therefore, there is no need to comply with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
Reported in : I(2007)BC53
1. Learned Advocate for the appellant is present. None has appeared for the respondents.2. The matter relates to an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay for filing the present appeal.3. The only point for consideration is whether sufficient reason have been ascribed for the delay and whether the reasons as shown by the applicant. Bank of India, are acceptable to the Tribunal to condone the delay and to admit the appeal.4. The sequence of events that has allegedly led to the delay in filing the appeal may be summed up as follows: The impugned order of the D.R.T., Ranchi was passed on 21st November, 2005 and the instant appeal was filed on 3rd February, 2006. In between the controlling office of the applicant-Bank as per their usual practice forwarded all papers and documents to the zonal office on 23rd December, 2005. Mr. Pradip Pal Choudhury was engaged by the zonal office as the Advocate to file and represent the case for the Bank in the ...
Tag this Judgment!