Court : DRAT Kolkata
1. The appeal arises out of order dated 23.6.2000 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna in O.A.Case No. 133 of 1999.2. The applicant Bank filed a claim case before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and in the said claim case filed a composite application containing two prayers namely, prayer for temporary injunction and prayer for appointment of Receiver so far as it relates to the property of the opposite party mortgaged/hypothecated to the Bank as security for the loan. The learned Presiding Officer after hearing the parties rejected the prayer on merit as well as on technical ground.3. He is of opinion that no case has been made out for injunction as well as appointment of Receiver, since there is no reasonable cause for apprehension in the minds of the appellant-petitioner. Being aggrieved the appeal has been preferred alleging that the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer is not in accordance with law and that he was not right in basing his de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta, dated 28.6.2000 in Case No. O.A. 6/1997 of the Tribunal.2. The present appellant from time-to-time in accordance with the usual practice of the Bank lent certain sums of money to the respondent No. 1 Company of which respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were originally the partners while respondent No. 4 subsequently purchased the Company and took upon himself the liability to pay the dues from the Company. Since, the loan was not repaid the Bank filed a claim case before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for realising a sum of Rs. 65 lakhs and odd. While the proceeding was in progress, there were series of talks as also exchange of letters containing proposals and counter proposals between the parties namely, the Bank and Company ultimately resulting in offer from the Bank by its letter dated 7.10.1997 wherein the Bank agreed to accept 33 lakhs by way of full satisfaction of due...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
1. The appeal arises out of order dated 8.6.2000 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna in PT Case No. 683 of 1998.2. The respondent No. 1 filed a claim case against the present appellants for realisation of certain sums of money which were granted as loan to different Potato Growers since they failed to repay the loan in spite of notice. While the claim case was going on the defendant Nos. 1, 2,4 and 5 filed an application for dismissal of the claim case on the ground that the case was not maintainable. Defendant No. 3 also filed an application praying for deleting his name. Both the applications were heard by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna, and by a common order, the prayer regarding dismissal of the claim case on the ground of maintainability was rejected while the prayer regarding deleting the name of defendant No.3 was allowed.3. Being aggrieved the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants i.e. defendant N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
1. The appeal is directed against the order dated 30.10.2000 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta, in Case No. O.A./152/2000.2. The respondent Bank filed a claim case before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta on 16.5.2000 for realising certain sum of money amounting to Rs. 20 lakhs and odd from the opposite party-appellant.Subsequently, on 5.7.2000, the Bank filed an application for injunction restraining the opposite party from transferring certain properties as mentioned in Schedules I and II of the claim petition as also from withdrawing the money lying in T.D.R. account at Bhabanipur Branch of the said Bank. An ex-parte order was passed granting the aforesaid injunction. Subsequently, the injunction matter was heard in presence of the present appellant and by the impugned order the ad-interim order of injunction so far as it relates to Schedules I and II is concerned was made absolute and the injunction order as it relevant to Schedule III of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
1. The appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 24.2.2000 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta, in T.A.No. 311 of 1995.2. The plaintiff-appellant Bank instituted a suit for realisation of Rs. 31 lakh and odd alleged to have been given to the Firm namely respondent-defendant No. 1 of which respondent-defendant Nos. 2,3 and father of respondent-defendant Nos. 4 to 7 (since dead) were the partners, 3. In course of hearing of the claim before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the defendant entered appearance. Defendant No. 1 the Firm filed a written statement but did not contest up to the last. Defendant No. 2 also filed a separate written statement but did not contest up to the last. Defendant Nos. 4 to 7 filed a joint written statement and contested the matter till the end.4. It is the case of the plaintiff-appellant that defendant No. 1 was a partnership firm of which defendants 2, 3 and father of defendants 4 to 7 were partners. On the death of their fath...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.6.1999 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna, in Case No. P.T. 652 of 1998.2. The respondent Bank preferred a claim case against the present appellants. It is the allegation of the appellant that no notice was served on them at any point of time and the Bank has obtained an expane order after suppressing summons. Their move before the Tribunal to set aside the ex parts decree also proved ineffective when they resorted to an application under Article 227 before the Patna High Court when the writ petition was dismissed with the observation was that the appellant might proceed against the ex pane decree in the appropriate Forum.Thereafter, the present appellants filed this appeal together with an application for condonation of delay and also, for exemption to make the deposit in terms of Section 21 of the Act. Both the aforesaid applications were heard in presence of the respondent Bank and also d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
1. The appeal arises out of an order dated 28.7.2000 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta, in a case between Central Bank of India v. Kathihar Jute Mills Ltd. and 5 Ors.2. The appellant filed an application for issuance of certificate/decree for a sum of one crore ninety-seven lakhs and odd.The case of the appellant Bank in short is that they filed a suit against the respondent in the Original Side in Calcutta High Court and obtained a decree on 8.6.1986. They obtained me Certified copy on 28.7.1988. The respondents who were Judgment-debtor did not pay the decretal dues and as such the appellant had filed an application on 8.9.1998 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta, alongwith an application for exemption to pay application fee in terms of the said Act. By impugned order dated 28.7,2000, the Presiding Officer declined to exempt the Bank from payment of the application fee. Hence the appeal.3. Their case is that they had earlier paid the necessar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
1. The appeal arises out of an order passed by the Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Calcutta on 10.11.2000 in Case No. TA/239 of 1996.2. The short facts necessary for the purpose of the appeal are that the respondent Bank instituted a number of suits in the Civil Court for the purpose of realisation of its dues since the appellants after obtaining loan from the Bank at different times did not repay the same in accordance with the agreement. Those suits excepting one were subsequently transferred to the D.R.T. when the Act came into force.While the suits were pending before the Claims Tribunal, there were series of negotiation between the parties over settlement of the disputes out of Court and the parties also obtained time on several occasions on the said pretext. There were, however, occasion when the appellants filed suit before the Supreme Court. The Bank also resorted to litigation in the High Court and in the process they also went up to the Supreme Court. The appellants also preferre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
1. The appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 30,7.1999 passed by the Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna in Case No, P.T. 13 of 1998.2. The case of the appellant in short is that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 obtained a loan on cash credit as well as term on 22.2.1978 and executed necessary documents as per rules. The limit of the loan was Rs. 42,000/- at the initial instance which was raised from time to time up to Rs. 36,35,000/-. Each time the respondents executed necessary documents as per rules. Sometime thereafter the respondents started defaulting in repayment and the total accumulated loan with interest rose up to 1,05,27,045.79. Since the respondent did not repay the loan in spite of demand, a suit was filed before the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Deoghar, which was subsequently transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal after the said Tribunal came into operation.3. The respondent entered appearance filed written statements but thereafter made defaul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Kolkata
1. An application was presented on 26.9.2000 purporting to be one under Section 17A(1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 hereinafter referred to as the Act, by the instant petition, the petitioners have sought to challenge the Order No. 13 dated 11.8.2000 passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Calcutta, on several grounds.2. A preliminary point that arose for consideration is about the maintainability of the petition under Section 17A(1) of the Act.Accordingly, the learned Advocate presenting the application was heard at length. He has also referred to a decision reported in AIR 1994 SC 3. It is contended by the learned Advocate that the power given by the said section to this Appellate Tribunal attracts even judicial matters passed by any DRT under its jurisdiction. It is contended that the section itself gives power to the Appellate Tribunal to appraise work which according to the learned Advocate means the judicial work and his contention is ...
Tag this Judgment!