Skip to content


Options Dock ▼

Recent Judgments Home > Latest Court: DRAT Page 31 of about 668 results (0.002 seconds)

Nov 18 2004 (TRI)

Lucky and Co. and anr. Vs. Uco Bank and anr.

Court : DRAT - Madras

Reported in : I(2005)BC121

1. Mr. P. Thiagarajan, Advocate for the appellants is present. Mr.Srinath Sridevan, Advocate for the 1st respondent Bank is present.2. Heard both sides. This appeal is filed by the appellants/Original Judgment debtors being aggrieved by the order dated 9.3.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of DRT-I, Chennai, in MA-23/2002 in OA-357/2001. By the impugned Order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made by the appellants/defendants herein, for setting aside the Order passed in the OA by the Presiding Officer under Section 31 -A of the RDDB&FI Act, 1993.3. The contention of the appellants is that even though the Tribunal has issued the Recovery Certificate in pursuance of the decree passed by the Pondicherry Sub-Court, way back on 29.2.1996, they were entitled to hearing before the Recovery Certificate was issued under Section 31-A of the RDDB&FI Act. Mr. Srinath Sridevan, the respondent Bank's Advocate, on the contrary, has su...

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 18 2004 (TRI)

State Bank of India Vs. D. Venkataramana Reddy and anr.

Court : DRAT - Madras

Reported in : I(2005)BC113

1. Mr. K.S. Sundar, Advocate for the appellant Bank is present. Mr.Devanand, Advocate holding Mr. G.R. Swaminathan for the respondents is present.2. This miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellant/original applicant State Bank of India being aggrieved by the order dated 23.3.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of DRT, Hyderabad, in RA-4/2004 in CP-65/2003 in RP-62/2002 in OA-16/1996. By the impugned order the learned Presiding Officer allowed the appeal filed by the third party/ claimant D. Venkataramana Reddy. The said appeal was filed by him under Section 30 of the RDDB&FI Act, 1993, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Recovery Officer during recovery proceedings between the respondent Bank (appellant herein) and judgment debtors K.Subbamma @ K. Vimalamma and others. During the recovery proceedings, Recovery Officer had passed order for attaching the property of the judgment debtors but the third party claimant appeared and claimed tha...

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 18 2004 (TRI)

Chandan Prabhakar Gadgil Vs. Allahabad Bank

Court : DRAT - Delhi

Reported in : I(2005)BC214

1. Respondent-Allahabad Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank) filed O.A. 7/98 against Western India Industries Ltd. (1st defendant), Mr. Chander Prabhakar Gadgil (being 3rd defendant and the appellant herein; hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-defendant') and others before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'). The DRT passed the final order dated 6.3.2002. The appellant-defendant filed an application before the DRT to set aside the order setting him ex parte (date 23.8.2001) and the final order dated 6.3.2002. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT dismissed the said application by order dated 30.4.2002.2. Aggrieved, the appellant-defendant has preferred this appeal. The respondent-Bank has filed a suitable reply opposing the same.3. I have heard the Counsel for both the sides, and perused the records.4. The learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant contends that the appellant-3rd. defendant ...

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 17 2004 (TRI)

Asif Alim Sait and anr. Vs. Syndicate Bank

Court : DRAT - Madras

Reported in : I(2005)BC123

1. Mr. M. Rajan, Advocate for the appellants is present. Mr. P.Sreenivasulu, Advocate for the respondent Bank is present and tenders reply, which is taken on record.2. Heard both the sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit.Also perused the proceedings including the impugned order and Roznama of this case on which I will make comment after a little while because it is very relevant.3. This appeal is sought to be filed by the appellants/original defendant Nos. 2 and 3 namely, Mr. Asif Alim Sait and Mr. Sadiq Alim Sait, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31.12.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of DRT, Bangalore, in OA-815/1995. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the claim in favour of the Bank in part and ordered all the three defendants to jointly and severally pay to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 18,83,219.50p. with subsequent interest at the rate of 17.5% p.a.compounded quarterly from 4.8...

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 17 2004 (TRI)

Montari Industries Ltd. Vs. State Bank of Patiala

Court : DRAT - Delhi

1. The State Bank of Patiala (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent-bank") has filed O. A. No. 31 of 2003 against the appellant-M/s. Montari Industries Limited (the first defendant, and hereinafter referred to as "the appellant-defendant") and others for the recovery of Rs. 17,47,21,665.73 with interest and costs before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the DRT"). The appellant-defendant filed an application under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "SICA"), read with rule 18 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, for stay of proceedings before the DRT in view of the pendency of the appeal before the AAIFR.In that application it was averred that the BIFR by order dated August 1, 1997, declared the appellant-defendant as a sick industrial unit, appointed an operating agency to work out a rehabilitation scheme, but by order dated January 9...

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 09 2004 (TRI)

Smt. Krishna and anr. Vs. Bank of Baroda

Court : DRAT - Delhi

Reported in : I(2005)BC227

1. Miscellaneous Appeal 281/2002 has been filed by defendant 5 and 6 (namely, Smt. Krishna and Smt. Lalita and hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants-defendants 5 and 6') in O.A. 697/95 against the order dated 12.7.2002 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-Ill, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') dismissing their application to set aside the ex parte final order dated 30.10.2001.2. Miscellaneous Appeal 282/2002 has been filed by the 4th defendant (namely, Pritam Singh, and hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-4th defendant') against the order dated 19.7.2002 passed by the said DRT, Delhi dismissing his application also to set aside the same ex parte final order dated 30.10.2001.3. The learned Counsel for both the sides stated that the points that arise for consideration in both the appeals arc similar, and advanced same arguments in both the appeals. Therefore, I am disposing of both the Miscellaneous Appeals 281/2002 and 282/2002 by this c...

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 02 2004 (TRI)

Punjab National Bank Vs. Tata Infotech Ltd.

Court : DRAT - Mumbai

Reported in : II(2005)BC16

1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellant/original applicant Punjab National Bank being aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai on Exhibit No. 7 in Original Application No.65/2003. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer held that the amount which was sought to be recovered by the applicant Bank from the defendants, did not amount to "Debt" within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and, therefore, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain and try the original application filed by the Bank. Holding this, he ordered the original application to be returned to the applicant Bank for being presented before appropriate forum. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the bank.2. I have heard Mr. D'lima for the appellant Bank and Mr. Purohit for the respondent. I have also gone through ...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 28 2004 (TRI)

State Bank of India Vs. Vee Kay Oils (P) Ltd. and ors.

Court : DRAT - Delhi

Reported in : I(2005)BC224

1. Appellant-State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellant-Bank') has preferred this appeal against the order dated 4.7.2003 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') on Application No. 2902/2003 in O.A.415/2002, filed by the certificate-debtors for return of the original title deeds. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT ordered that the original title deeds be returned to the certificate-debtors, if the terms and conditions of the consent-decree have been complied with.2. Aggrieved, the appellant-Bank has preferred this appeal, and the 2nd respondent has filed a suitable reply opposing the same.3. I have heard the Counsel for both the sides, and perused the records.4. O.A. 415/2002 was filed by the appellant-Bank against defendants (1) M/s. Vee Kay Oils (P) Ltd., (2) Mr. Kamal Kishore Arora, (3) Mr. Kishan Chand Arora [since deceased, now represented by (a) Mr. Kamal Kishore Arora, (b) Mrs. Go...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 20 2004 (TRI)

Sylvania Laxman Ltd. and ors. Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.

Court : DRAT - Delhi

Reported in : I(2005)BC244

1. Respondents 1 to 5 in this appeal, namely, Punjab National Bank, Canara Bank, State Bank of Patiala, Standard Chartered Bank, ICICI Bank (formely Bank of Madura Ltd.) (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') filed O.A. 218/97 against the appellants herein (who are defendants 1 to 4 in the O.A., and hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-defendants'). The 6th respondent herein-IFCI was the 5th defendant in the O.A. before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'). The claim in the O.A. is for the recovery of Rs. 10,06,82,207.69 with interest and costs. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, by the impugned order dated 28.9.2001 declined the request of the appellants-defendants to allow them to file the written statement, and also directed that the written statement, which has been filed without the permission and after the closing of the right of the appellants-defendants to file the written statement, be ...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 18 2004 (TRI)

Makewell Polymers (P) Ltd. and Vs. Bank of India and anr.

Court : DRAT - Delhi

Reported in : II(2005)BC36

1. First respondent - Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') filed T.A. 137/2002 (initially O.A. 256/2001) against appellants (who are defendants 1 and 3 in the TA, and hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-defendants') and Girdhari Lal Arora, the 2nd defendant in the T.A., for the recovery of Rs. 1,12,00,237.59 with interest and costs. On 1.10.2002 reply to the T.A. on behalf of the defendants was filed, but the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') did not take the reply filed by the defendants on record, and directed the respondent Bank to file the affidavit (by way of evidence) in two weeks. The matter was ordered to be listed on 28.10.2002.2. In the meanwhile, on 18.10.2002, an application (IA 176/2002) on behalf of the defendants was filed to condone the delay in filing the written statement, and to take the same on record. This application came up for h...

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //