Court : DRAT Mumbai
Reported in : I(2008)BC122
1. Since both these appeals raise common question of law they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. A short question that arises in these appeals is whether the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SRFAESI Act") would be applicable to the Co-operative Banks which are registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.3. The respondent bank which is a Co-operative Bank had initiated an action against the appellants under the provisions of Section 101 of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and got the recovery certificate issued thereunder. Thereafter the respondent bank took an action under the provisions of the SRFAESI Act against the appellants which was challenged by the appellants by filing an appeal/application under Section 17 of the SRFAESI Act in the D.R.T.Nagpur. During the pendency of said appli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Mumbai
Reported in : I(2008)BC108
1. This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 5th April, 2006 passed by the Presiding Officer of the D.R.T.-II, Mumbai rejecting an application filed by the appellant for setting aside an ex parte decree passed against the appellant on the ground that the application was time-barred in the following circumstances: The respondent Bank had filed an Original Application for recovery of debts due from the appellant and other defendants. The appellant was the original defendant No. 2. He and the defendant No. 3 were the guarantors and the Directors of the appellant No. 1 company. The appellant's wife was impleaded as the defendant No. 4 being the guarantor and the mortgagor of the flat. The summons of the Original Application were sought to be served on the appellant by registered post on the residential address of the appellant which was returned with a postal endorsement 'unclaimed'. As per the practice of the D.R.T. the copy of the judgment and order was sent on the address ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Mumbai
Reported in : I(2008)BC91
1. This appeal is filed challenging order dated 8th (sic) 2006 passed by the In-charge Presiding Officer, D.R.T.-I, Mumbai rejecting appeal/application filed under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the SRFAESI Act) on the ground of limitation. The following facts are undisputed.2. One notice dated 7th April, 2005 under Section 13(2) of the SRFAESI Act was served on the appellants by one branch of the respondent Bank and other notice dated 11th June, 2005 was served on the appellants by another branch of the respondent Bank in respect of the other account.A symbolic possession of the property in question was taken on 15th July, 2005 but the actual possession of the property was taken by the respondent Bank on 13th March, 2006 and the appeal/ application under Section 17 of the SRFAESI Act was filed before the D.R.T. on 10th April, 2006.3. It is contended on behalf of the res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Mumbai
Reported in : I(2008)BC83
1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 25th October, 2004 passed by the Residing Officer, D.R.T.-II, Mumbai allowing Original Application of the respondent Bank to hold the appellant/ defendant No. 4 liable jointly and severally with defendant Nos. 1 to 3 for the debts of the borrower company. The appeal arises in the following circumstances.2. The respondent Bank had filed the Original Application against four defendants. Defendant No. 1 was borrower company and defendant Nos. 2 to 4 were directors and guarantors. A loan was sanctioned to the defendant No. 1 company by the respondent Bank.3. After considering the evidence, the Presiding Officer in para No. 4 of the judgment dated 4th February, 2003 has observed that the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 had executed guarantees in 1996 onwards. In para 11 of the judgment it is also observed that the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 admitted to have signed the guarantee agreement However, in the operative portion of the order only defendant No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Mumbai
Reported in : I(2008)BC131
1. This appeal has been filed impugning order dated 12th September, 2006 passed by the Presiding Officer of D.R.T.-I, Mumbai rejecting application filed by the appellant company to lead secondary evidence on the basis of notarized copies of the original documents tendered along with appellant company's affidavit of evidence in support of its claim.2. Case of the appellant is that the documents mentioned in the application dated 24th January, 2006 which were kept in the appellant's factory were destroyed due to flood which took place in Mumbai on 26th July, 2005 because of heavy rainfall. Therefore, the appellant company was unable to produce original documents relied on by the company and so in order to prove its case it sought to file notarized copies of all the original documents relied on by the appellant company. That application was rejected by the Presiding Officer on the ground that the notary had not mentioned whether the notarized copies were attested and prepared on the basi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Mumbai
Reported in : IV(2007)BC11
1. This application for condonation of delay presents a very sorry state of affairs because after getting one more opportunity to file additional affidavit, there seems to be no desire on the part of the appellant Bank to put its house in order.2. The application is filed by the appellant Bank for condonation of delay of 224 days in filing the appeal against an order of dismissal of claim of the Bank as against the defendant Nos. 3 to 5 and against other defendants in respect of reduction in the rate of interest while decreeing the claim against them.3. In the affidavit filed by the branch manager in support of the application for condonation of delay, reason given is that the previous Advocate representing the appellant Bank had orally given advice to file review application before the D.R.T. According to the Bank its previous advocate was perhaps ignorant about the settled law with respect to the issues involved in the present appeal and, therefore, the Bank had to approach experts ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Mumbai
Reported in : 2(2007)BC13
1. The only point which is required to be considered in these two appeals is whether in view of the terms and conditions of the letters of credit dated 5th August, 1991, the bills of exchange dated 5th August, 1991 drawn by the appellants, Western Ministil Limited and discounted by the respondent No. 1-the Bank of Rajasthan Limited can be said to be "without recourse" to the drawers. The said point is required to be considered in the following facts and circumstances.2. The respondent No. 3 Virgo Steels had placed orders on the appellants, Western Ministil Limited for supply of R.C.S. billets some time in the months of July and August, 1991. The payment was to be made under the letters of credit against the bills of exchange which were accepted by the buyers. The respondent No. 3 who were constituents of the respondent No. 2 the U.Co. Bank had got irrevocable letters of credit issued from the U.Co. Bank on 5th August, 1991 in favour of the appellants. The said letters of credit were w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Mumbai
Reported in : 2(2007)BC1
1. This combined appeal has been filed in respect of the common order dated 1st March, 2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Ahmedabad disposing of three applications, one filed by the respondent Bank and two applications filed by the appellants. Normally the appellants ought to have filed three separate appeals against the common order which has disposed of three separate applications. Another anomaly in this appeal is that this appeal is filed by the three appellants i.e. the company and two directors who are also the guarantors through a common Advocate. Yet the appellant No. 2 argued the appeal in person and the Advocate for the appellants argued the matter on behalf of the appellant Nos. 1 and 3 stating that the appellant No. 2 had separated from the other two appellants who are none other than the borrower company of which he was a director and also the guarantor and the appellant No. 3 who is the wife of appellant No. 2. This seems to have been done probably with a view...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Mumbai
Reported in : I(2007)BC192
1. A short question which arises in this appeal is whether the Recovery Officer can issue a sale certificate in respect of the immovable property which was in the possession of D.R.T. receiver and sold by a private treaty as sanctioned by the Recovery Officer. The sale certificate issued earlier was withdrawn by an order dated 17th, July, 2006 passed by the Recovery Officer of D.R.T.-II, Mumbai against which the appeal filed before the D.R.T was also dismissed on 7th August, 2006 which order is impugned in the present appeal.3. While dismissing the appeal, the D.R.T.-II has observed that if the sale is by private treaty, the sale certificate cannot be issued by the Tribunal. It is further observed that the sale certificate is issued by the Tribunal in a case in which the Recovery Officer himself undertakes to sell and not in a sale by private treaty in which the Recovery Officer has no role to play and therefore he dismissed the appeal from the facts which have been placed on record a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Mumbai
Reported in : I(2007)BC47
1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29th April, 2003 passed by the D.R.T.-III, Mumbai allowing the respondent Bank's claim against the appellants on a bill of exchange dated 14lh September, 1992. Few facts which give rise to the appeal are as follows: Trade Aid and Paper Allied Products (India) Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'drawer') had agreed to supply goods viz. white printing papers to the appellants. The said party had also obtained a bill discounting facility from the respondent-Bank. The bill of exchange was drawn by the drawer, who were supplier of the goods to the appellants, in favour of the respondent-Bank. The bill for Rs. 9,99,999/- was payable on or before 13th December, 1992. The said bill was accepted by the appellants for the purchase of the goods. On due date, the said bill of exchange was dishonoured by the appellants by non-payment and, therefore, the respondent-Bank filed a suit against the appellants for recovery of th...
Tag this Judgment!