Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: drat mumbai Page 1 of about 4 results (0.012 seconds)

Jan 19 2007 (TRI)

Jayant Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Andhra Bank

Court : DRAT Mumbai

Reported in : I(2008)BC131

..... the original documents and, therefore, the notary could not have certified the copies as true copies of the original documents. the averments and the prayer made in the application are patently and on the face of it, wrong. to grant the application as prayed would amount to admitting the certified copies in evidence, authenticity of which is in doubt. the learned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 25 2007 (TRI)

Kanji Manji Kothari and Co. and Vs. Uco Bank

Court : DRAT Mumbai

Reported in : I(2008)BC91

..... the learned advocate for the respondent bank has no relevance at all for interpreting sections 17 and 13(4) of the srfaesi act. the presiding officer was, therefore, clearly and patently in error in counting period of limitation from the date of taking symbolic possession of the, secured property.5. in the result, the appeal is allowed with costs of rs .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 12 1998 (TRI)

JaIn Rice Mills Through Jagdish Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and ors.

Court : DRAT Mumbai

..... realise more amount if at all according to him the sale price was inadequate. the appellant j.d. could not avail of this opportunity. the reasons are obvious. all these patent facts clearly show that the reserve price based on the valuation report was the real market value of the property. in fact, inadequacy of price cannot be the ground for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 2005 (TRI)

Sharad D. Khadepau and anr. Vs. Dena Bank and ors.

Court : DRAT Mumbai

1. this miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellants/ original defendant nos. 2 (a) and 2 (b) being aggrieved by the order dated 3rd december, 2003 passed by the learned presiding officer of debts recovery tribunal-iii, mumbai on exhibit nos. 16 and 23 in original application no. 382 of 200 1. by the impugned order, the learned presiding officer allowed the application made by the respondent no.1 bank for taking on record heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant nos. 2 and 4. being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant no.2 dhansukhlal panalai khadepau, who had expired on 17th august, 2001.2. few relevant facts, which are required to be stated are as follows: the respondent no.1 dena bank has filed suit in the high court of judicature at bombay being suit no. 1140 of 1998 against six defendants praying joint and several decree against them for an aggregate sum of rs. 76,23,255.app. with interest etc. and for enforcement of their securities. the said suit came to be transferred to the d.r.t-iii, mumbai upon establishment of the d.r.ts as per provisions of the rddbfi act, 1993 and was re-numbered as original application no. 382 of 2001.3. it appears that during pendency of the original application, the original defendant no.2 dhansukhlal panalal khadepau expired on 17th august, 2001. the appellant no.1 sharad khadepaul defendant no.2 (a) by his letter dated 24th august, 2001 informed the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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