Skip to content

Filter by :

Latest Judgments Judgments > Court:DRAT Page:31

Nov 18 2004

Lucky And Co. And Anr. Vs. Uco Bank And Anr.

  • Decided on : 18-Nov-2004

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 supported the order. He has also relied upon the Judgment of this Appellate Tribunal reported in III (2003) Banking Cases 112 (S. Ravi and Anr. v. Indian Bank) wherein the previous Chairperson late Justice Mrs. A. Subbulakshmy, has categorically held that no notice is required to be given under Section 31-A, if the amount exceeds Rs. 10 lakhs. In the present case, the amount exceeded Rs. 10 lakhs and the Recovery Certificate was issued pursuant to the decree dated 29.2.1996 passed by the Pondicherry Sub-Court and it is ...

Nov 18 2004

State Bank Of India Vs. D. Venkataramana Reddy And Anr.

  • Decided on : 18-Nov-2004

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 that the same belonged to him and prayed for raising the attachment of that property in question. This prayer was rejected by the Recovery Officer against which appeal was preferred by the third party before the Presiding Officer of DRT, which was allowed. Being aggrieved, it is now the Bank who has approached this Appellate Tribunal by filing this miscellaneous appeal.4. OA No. 16/1996 was filed by the appellant/original applicant namely, State Bank of India against four defendants for recovery of Rs. 2,62,48,419.94p. and ...

Nov 18 2004

Chandan Prabhakar Gadgil Vs. Allahabad Bank

  • Decided on : 18-Nov-2004

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 was formerly a director of the company, that under the family arrangement dated 30.8.91 the defendants 4, 5, 7 and 8 have released the appellant-defendant from all liability, and, therefore, the appellant is not liable to answer any claim against Western India Industries Ltd. The learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant also contends that the notice in the O.A. was issued for 5.3.98, that the appellant-defendant had put in appearance on that date itself, and that he had been appearing before the DRT on all the dates ...

Nov 17 2004

Montari Industries Ltd. Vs. State Bank Of Patiala

  • Decided on : 17-Nov-2004

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, 2003, directed that the appellant-defendant be wound up. It was also averred that the appellant-defendant has preferred an appeal against the said order of the BIFR, and that the AAIFR has registered the same as Appeal No. 137 of 2003 on May 14, 2003. It was, therefore, urged that the proceedings against the defendants in the O. A. cannot be proceeded with except with the permission of the AAIFR.2. This application of the appellant-defendant was opposed by the respondent-bank. The learned presiding officer of the DRT, ...

Nov 17 2004

Asif Alim Sait And Anr. Vs. Syndicate Bank

  • Decided on : 17-Nov-2004

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 4.8.1995 till the date of realisation. The counter-claim filed by the defendants/appellants was dismissed with costs. The learned Presiding Officer accordingly, directed Recovery Certificate to be issued in the above stated terms. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is sought to be filed.4. Today, application for waiver of pre-deposit under Section 21 of the RDDB&FI Act, 1993 is being argued.5. I have heard Mr. Rajan, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. P.Sreenivasulu, Advocate for the respondent Bank. The appeal is ...

Nov 09 2004

Smt. Krishna And Anr. Vs. Bank Of Baroda

  • Decided on : 09-Nov-2004

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 common order.4. Respondent-Bank of Baroda filed Suit 202/95 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against, (1) Shri Sai Industries, (2) Mr. Rajesh Bajaj, (3) Manoj Kumar, (4) Mr. Pritam Singh (appellant in Miscellaneous Appeal 282/2002), (5) Smt. Krishna, (6) Smt. Lalita (appellants in Miscellaneous Appeal 281/2002, (7) Smt. Sarita and (8) Mr. N.K. Bajaj.The said suit was transferred by the Hon'ble High Court to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi by order dated 6.9.95, with a direction to the parties to appear before ...

Nov 02 2004

Punjab National Bank Vs. Tata Infotech Ltd.

  • Decided on : 02-Nov-2004

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 the proceedings including the impugned order and in my view, the learned Presiding Officer has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. Case of the applicant Bank is that they were desirous of installing a software solution which would be a complete solution enabling the Bank to complete all tasks relating to the Foreign Exchange Offices at Delhi and Mumbai. The respondents/Tata Infotech Ltd. had offered to provide such solution. Detailed discussions were held between the parties and the applicant Bank ...

Oct 28 2004

State Bank Of India Vs. Vee Kay Oils (P) Ltd. And Ors.

  • Decided on : 28-Oct-2004

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. Goldy Arora, (c) Mrs. Neena Mehra, (d) Ms. Suparna Arora, (e) Mrs. Nisha Gopta, (f) Mr. Yogesh Arora, (4) Mrs. Goldy Arora, and (5) Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., for the recovery of the money due to the appellant-Bank from defendants 1 to 4.5. The parties had compromised the matter, and in terms thereof the final order dated 4.10.2002 was passed in O.A. 415/2002 directing the defendants to pay Rs. 67 lakhs in terms of the compromise, with a further direction that the title deeds, if any, may be ...

Oct 20 2004

Sylvania Laxman Ltd. And Ors. Vs. Punjab National Bank And Ors.

  • Decided on : 20-Oct-2004

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 taken off the record. Aggrieved by this order, the appellants-defendants have come forward with this appeal. The respondent-Banks in the appeal have not filed any reply to the appeal, but the learned Counsel for the respondent-Banks stated that arguments would be addressed opposing the appeal.2. I have heard the Counsel for both the sides, and perused the records.3. The learned Counsel for the appellants-defendants contends that on 9.7.97 the DRT directed the respondent-Banks to furnish the documents and the complete ...

Oct 18 2004

Makewell Polymers (P) Ltd. And Vs. Bank Of India And Anr.

  • Decided on : 18-Oct-2004

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 hearing on 21.10.2002 before the DRT. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT observed that the defendants who had been appearing since 5.3.2002, failed to file the reply despite many opportunities given, and that the right to file the written statement was closed in view of the orders dated 5.3.2002 and 15.4.2002. Therefore, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT dismissed the said application holding that in view of the order passed on 1.10.2002 the said application is not maintainable.3. Aggrieved by these two orders ...

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