Court : DRAT Mumbai
Reported in : IV(2004)BC241
1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellant State Bank of India/Original Applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 23.4.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal Ahmedabad in Civil Misc. Application No. 7 of 2002, arising out of Original Application No. 81 of 1995. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the application made by the original defendants (present respondent Nos. 1 to 4) wherein, they had inter alia sought extension of time to make balance payment to the applicant Bank till 30.6.2002 though there were consent terms filed by the parties. This payment was to be made much earlier. In short, the application was made by the defendants praying for directions from the Tribunal that the Bank be directed to accept payment of instalment beyond the time which was fixed between the parties as per the consent terms. This extension was granted by the Tribunal and this is what is hurting the Bank and hence, the present Misc. appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Mumbai
Reported in : IV(2004)BC233
1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellant/original applicant Bank namely Central Bank of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 6.8.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai on the application made by the respondents dated 19.7.2002 (Exhibit 23) inter alia seeking modification of the earlier order dated 9.7.2002 (Exhibit 16).2. The earlier order dated 9.7.2002 was passed by the learned Presiding Officer on the application made by the Bank and injunction as prayed in terms of prayer Clause (a) was granted. This order was passed after perusing valuation report. It also appears that at the time of hearing of this application, none was present on behalf of the defendants (the respondents herein). Prayer Clause (a) of the said application reads as follows: "(a) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the application, the defendant No. 1 be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon'ble Tribunal from in any manner alienating, part...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Mumbai
Reported in : IV(2004)BC238
1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendant Nos.1 to 4 being aggrieved by the order dated 20.8.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur on Interlocutory Application No. 387/2002 in Original Application No.203/2001. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer dismissed stay application made by the appellants for staying proceedings in Original Application till final decision is taken by the B.I.F.R. in case No. 160/2002. Applicant Bank, namely Canara Bank had filed Spl. Civil Suit No. 574/1998 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Nagpur against the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 for recovery of Rs. 10,57,41,633/-. The defendant Nos. 5 and 6 were proforma parties. Some how, the case was kept dragging in the Civil Court till the year 1999. No written statement was filed by the defendants, Thereafter on the passing of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act') and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Mumbai
Reported in : IV(2004)BC203
1. This Misc. appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendant Nos.1 and 2 being aggrieved by the order dated 5.8.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur on interlocutory application No. 421 of 2002 in Original Application No.266 of 2001. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made by the appellants for stay of the proceedings in the DRT till final decision of the Complaint Case No. 41 of 1996 pending before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai with exemplary costs of Rs. 2500/- payable to the applicant Bank by each appellants i.e. defendants Nos. 1 and 2 by way of demand draft on or before 19.8.2002.2. I have heard Mr. Deo for the appellants and Mr. Bhagwat for the respondent No. 1 Bank. I have also perused the proceedings. The respondent No. 1 namely the Sangli Bank had filed Special Civil Suit No. 30 of 1999 against the appellants and two more, in the Court of Civil Judge (SD), Am...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Mumbai
Reported in : IV(2004)BC206
1. This Misc. appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendant Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 7 being aggrieved by the order dated 4.7.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur on Interlocutory Application No. 482 of 2002 in Original Application No.316 of 2001. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer dismissed the interlocutory application made by the appellants to stay the proceedings under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, pending in the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur till decision of the Special Civil Suit No. 1034 of 1996, pending on the file of Civil Judge (S.D.), Nagpur. The original applicant Maharashtra State Financial Corporation (hereinafter to be referred to for the sake of brevity as the Corporation) filed Misc. Civil Application No. 843 of 1996 under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 in the Court of District Judge, Nagpur against the defendant Nos. 1 to 7 (applicant Nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 7 and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Mumbai
Reported in : IV(2004)BC218
1. This matter is moved by way of praecipe by Mr. K.R. Shekhawat and Mr. M.D. Samel, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 Bank, appears on notice.2. The appellants/original defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are aggrieved by the order dated 24.9.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur on I.A. No. 203 of 2002 in Original Application No. 140/2001.By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer, not only rejected the application made by the appellants for permeating them to cross-examine the Bank witnesses who might file affidavit, but also struck off the evidence of two Bank witnesses namely P. W. No. 1 Mr.Shalik Laxmanrao Parate and P.W. No. 2 Mr. Mukund Vasudeo Naik, which was already recorded by the Civil Court and which evidence therefore had become part of the record and proceedings.3. Few facts, which are required to be stated, of the case, are as follows: The applicant Bank namely the Central Bank of India had filed civil suit No. 979 of 1993 against...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Mumbai
Reported in : IV(2004)BC220
1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellants ICICI Bank Limited being aggrieved by the order dated 23.7.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal III, Mumbai on Exhibit 17 in the Original Application No. 162 of 2002. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding officer rejected the application made by the applicant Bank wherein two fold prayers were made. The first prayer was for giving direction to the receiver who has been already appointed by the DRT to sell property mentioned in Exhibits A, B and C to the original application by public auction, by private treaty or otherwise and the second prayer in the alternative, was that the order dated 9.5.2002 passed by the DRT-III, Mumbai, directing payment of royalty of Rs. 10 lacs after every quarter be modified and royalty amount be enhanced to Rs. 15 crores per month. The learned Presiding Officer, however, by the impugned order, rejected both the prayers. The original application came to be filed by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Mumbai
Reported in : IV(2004)BC194
1. This Misc Appeal is filed by the appellant/original defendant No. 1 M/s. Continental Construction Limited, being aggrieved by the order dated 27.12.2001, passed by the Incharge Presiding Officer, DRT I, Mumbai on Exhibit 9 in OA. No. 1241/2000.By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer, after hearing both the sides and after perusing the proceedings, especially the order dated 10.9.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in the Notice of Motion taken out by the original plaintiff i.e.M/s. Export Import Bank of India (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Exim Bank') in Suit No. 660 of 1998, directed the appellant to deposit amount of compensation which the appellant had received from the United Nations Compensation Commission with the applicant Bank i.e. Exim Bank and the original defendant No. 2 State Bank of India (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'SBI'), who are creditors of the appellant in the proportion of 50.08% and 49.92% respectively....
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Mumbai
Reported in : IV(2005)BC151
1. The Ratnakar Bank Limited had advanced certain facilities to the respondent M/s. Star Conduit (India) and others, partnership firm of which the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 were the partners. Since there were defaults in repayment of the loan, the appellant Bank filed suit for recovery of Rs. 45,20,725.94 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangli where it was numbered as Special Civil Suit No. 116/93. The defendants/respondents filed their written statement in the Civil Court at Sangli and further raised counter claim. When the evidence in that suit on behalf of the appellant Bank was over, the matter came to be transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai, in the first instance where it was numbered as O.A. No. 277/99 and thereafter to Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad, camping at Pune, where it was numbered as O.A. No. 420/P/2001. After hearing both the sides, the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad camping at Pune recorded his findings on the issues frame...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Mumbai
1. The appeals are filed by the same party but arise out of two different applications filed in two Original Applications of the Bank of Rajasthan, which are disposed of by common judgment by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Mumbai, on 16.07.2001. Orders are passed on applications Exhibit 58 in O.A. No. 3202 of 2000 and Exhibit 92 in O.A. No. 1808 of 2000. Both these applications were made by the defendant No. 3 in the original applications namely Western Ministil Limited, a company.2. In order to understand controversy brief facts are required to be stated. The respondent No. 3 M/s. Virgo Steel, partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act was from time-to-time purchasing various semi-finished steel products such as RCS billets of various descriptions, size and other products from the appellants. In respect of the said transactions, the payments were made occasionally by the respondent No. 3, M/s. Virgo Steel under various letters of credit establis...
Tag this Judgment!