Court : DRAT Kolkata
1. Two appeals being 8 of 2001 and 9 of 2001 have been heard in analogous. The respondent United Bank of India filed claim cases against the present appellants of both the appeals for realisation of certain sum of money. The Appeal No. 8 of 2001 arose out of O. A. No.194/1998 while Appeal No. 9 of 2001 arose out of O.A. No. 195/1998. The impugned order is dated 14.12.2000 being order No. 7 of the respective claim cases. The facts of the claim cases as appears from the applications made before the claim's Tribunal which were disposed of by the similar order were also the same. Identical order were passed in both cases.2. The case of the appellants in both the matters are that they instituted suits before the High Court in the month of June, 1998. It is alleged that as acounterblast, the claim cases were filed against them on 28.8.1998 with inflated claims. There was an interim order of the stay of the claim case which was vacated only on 5.12.2000 and the impugned order was passed on 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
1. The petitioner intends to file an appeal against an order of the Presiding Officer of DRT at Patna but due to financial reasons, it has filed the Memo of Appeal with a fee of Rs. 500/- only under Rule 8 of DRT Procedure Rules and prays for a month's time to file the balance of the fee. Considered, let the Memo of Appeal be presently marked as a Misc. Case And the matter is adjourned till 11.8.2000 for payment of the deficit fee and for further order.2. The petitioner has not taken any steps and also found absent on calls. It appears that the petitioners intended to file an appeal with a fee of Rs. 500/- only on the date of filing coupled with a prayer for an adjournment to pay the balance of the fee and the day was fixed for filing of the deficit fee.3. Since, no steps have been taken by the petitioner, it is liable to be dismissed but as & last chance, the petitioner is given the liberty to file the deficit fee, if any, by 5th Sept., 2000 failing which the Memo of Appeal shall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
1. This is an appeal preferred under Section 20(1) of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1993" and is directed against the judgment and order dated 16th June, 1999, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta in T.A. 151/97.2. The case of the appellant Bank in short is that they had to file a title suit being 61/1983 in the Court of Assistant District Judge, Alipore for recovery of certain amount and for enforcement of mortgage created to secure the advances by the Bank, A preliminary decree was passed on 21st April, 1987 and a final decree was passed ex-parte on 18th June, 1991, with direction to sell the mortgaged property. In the absence of amicable payment, title execution being 1/1992 was started in the 3rd Court of Assistant District Judge at Alipore for sale of mortgaged property and realisation of Rs. 27,24,946.85. In the meantime, on 24th June, 1993, the Recovery of Debts D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
1. The appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 22.1.2001 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Calcutta, in O.A. No. 5/1997.2. The appellant filed a claim case before the Debts Recovery Tribunal against the respondents for realisation of certain sum of money as the same was not repaid in terms of the agreement by the latter. The respondent was contesting the claim by filing written objection alleging that the application was barred by law of limitation. In course of trial the applicant Bank adduced oral evidence besides submitting certain documents. The learned Presiding Officer on a consideration of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the respondent-defendant signed a balance confirmation statement on 2.12.1993 and 14.1.1994 as claimed by the Bank. Accordingly, he found the claim case barred by law and as such it was dismissed.3. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been preferred by the Bank challenging the findings of the Tribun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
1. The appeal arises out of order dated 28.3.2000 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna, in Execution Case No. 55 of 1999.2. The respondent State Bank filed a claim case against the appellant in a Civil Court and got a decree by way of compromise between the parties. Hereafter, it was transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal in view of the promulgation of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act. On receipt of the record, the learned Presiding Officer issued a certificate. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been preferred alleging that no opportunity was given to the appellant to contest the issuance of certificates. It is alleged that the Bank induced the appellant to enter into a compromise by granting "no objection" certificate, that subsequently, it appeared to the appellant that such "no objection" certificate was not in accordance with law. It is also alleged that the compromise decree was a preliminary one and there was no ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
1. The appeal arises out of order dated 19.8.1999 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Calcutta in Misc.Application No. 19/1998 arising out of T.A. No. 15 of 1994.2. The present appellant filed an application alongwith a prayer for condonation of limitation for setting aside the ex pane decree passed by the Tribunal on 15.6.1995. Earlier, the respondent Bank filed a suit in the Court of Assistant District Judge, Alipore, for certain sum of money against the appellant and others. The suit was later transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, in Calcutta, The present appellant engaged an Advocate in the suit. But the said Advocate instead of appearing before the Tribunal for setting aside ex pane give the advice to file the writ application in the Calcutta High Court, challenging the vires of the Act. Certain restrain order was passed from time to time in the said proceeding. The another application under Article 227 of the Constitution was also filed in the High ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
1. The appeal arising out of order dated 20.12.2000 and 29.12.2000 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati, in O. A. No. 4/1997 deals with a very short aspect but at the same time a critical aspect of the claim case pending before the Tribunal.2. It is the case of the appellant who was the defendant in the claim case that no opportunity was given to them to cross examine the witness of the Bank who gave evidence on the basis of affidavit. It is also alleged that enough opportunity has not been given to the defendant to file affidavit evidence. It is further alleged that defendant Nos. 8 and 9 who are already dead have not been substituted by incorporating the legal representatives and, as such, the final order to be passed in the claim case will be infructuous.3. The appeal is being resisted by respondent Bank, who is contesting the appeal by filing a written objection denying all allegations and stating that the defendants were killing time and dela...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
1. Two appeals being A-23/2000 and A-6/ 2001 were heard in analogous since they arose out of the same judgment and order dated 7th of July, 2000 passed by the Presiding Officer. D.R.T.-l, Calcutta, in T.A. No.106/1996. In A-23/2000 the United Bank of India is the appellant while they were the petitioners in the Tribunal below. In A-6/2001 the appellants are opposite parties in the claim cases in the Tribunal below.2. Earlier the United Bank of India filed suit before the Civil Court for realisation of certain sum of money alleged to have been put to the opposite parties but were not repaid by them. After the promulgation of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act the said claim was automatically transferred to the Tribunal from the Civil Court. Thereafter, the matter was heard when both the sides examined one witness each besides filing certain documents. The learned Presiding Officer after considering the evidence on the record came to the conclusion that the to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
1. The appeal arises out of order dated 5.3.1999 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Calcutta, by which the payer regarding non-payment of fee contained in the application made by the appellant Bank was rejected.2. Being aggrieved the present appeal has been filed alleging that the impugned order is bad in law since the appellant Bank already paid Court-fees in accordance with rules while they filed the claim case before the Civil Court which was later decreed. Since the decree was not executed and in the meantime, the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act came into force the appellant Bank had to file an application before the Tribunal under Section 19 praying for execution of the decree of the Civil Court in accordance with law. But the learned Presiding Officer, on the basis of the report of the learned Registrar of the Tribunal, directed payment of the fees in accordance with Rule 7 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta, dated 23.10.2000 in T.A. No. 347 of 1995 by which the learned Presiding Officer refused to set aside the ex-pane order passed by him.2. The case of the appellant who was defendant No. 4 in the original suit before the Debt Recovery Tribunal is that he was not aware of the filing of the suit till 25.11.1998 when he came across a paper publication whereby his knowledge about a suit by the Bank drawned. It is the further case of the appellant that no attempt was made to serve notice of the suit on the appellant and, as such, the substituted service effected by publication is not in accordance with law. It is their further case that on getting the information from the newspaper, he at once contacted a Lawyer and after inspection of the record, application was made for certified copy of the impugned order on 7.12.1998. He got the certified copy on 10.12.1998 and thereafter filed a Misc. Case...
Tag this Judgment!