Debt Recovery Tribunals

Jurisdiction/Issuing Court

Latest documents

• SARFAESI Application No. 2 of 2008. Case: Kross Manufactures India (Pvt.) Ltd. and Ors. Vs M/s. Allahabad Bank and Ors.. Chennai Debt Recovery Tribunals

  1. The above application (SA) was filed by applicants on 21.01.2008 praying this Tribunal to direct the 3rd respondent M/s. Allahabad Bank, T. Nagar Branch represented by the Authorised Officer to release the goods valued at Rs. 20,24,000/- forthwith. The case of the applicants, in brief, is as follows:-- 1. The first applicant-M/s. Kross Manufact...

• S.A. No. 35/2008. Case: Chaitanya Pharma and Others Vs Union Bank of India. Mumbai Debt Recovery Tribunals

  1. The Respondent's taking possession u/s. 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short 'SARFAESI Act'] of property bearing Plot No. E-51, Additional Ambernath Area, MIDC, Jambivali Village, Ambernath, District Thane is challenged in this application u/s. 17 of SARFAESI...

• O.A. No. 26/2007. Case: Bank of Maharashtra Vs Champagne Indage Ltd.. Mumbai Debt Recovery Tribunals

  1. This is an application for recovery of Rs. 24,45,26,215/- with interest @ PLR + 4% p.a. at quarterly rests from the date of filing the Original Application till full realization. The uncommon facts of the case are thus: The Champagne India Ltd. [CIL] was the Applicant's constituent enjoying certain Credit Facilities prior to 1996. Its account ha...

• SARFAESI Application No. 23/2007. Case: Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Vs Authorised Officer, State Bank of India and Ors.. Chennai Debt Recovery Tribunals

  1. This application is filed by the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. the applicant herein to set aside the Tender Notice dt. 20.1.2007 published by the 1st respondent bank in respect of the subject property and to declare that the 1st respondent did not have the legal right or authority in law to take any steps against the subject property under the provisio...

• Application No. 72 of 2007. Case: Swastik Metal Corporation Vs Dena Bank and Others. Mumbai Debt Recovery Tribunals

  1. This is an application u/s. 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short 'SARFAESI Act']. The two flats in Mumbai described in Exh. A to the Securitisation Application [S.A.], subject matter of this Application, are sold by the Respondent Bank under SARFAESI Act by publ...

• Appeal No. 14 of 2008. Case: Balkrishna Sandeepkumar Vs Union Bank of India. Mumbai Debt Recovery Tribunals

  1. The order Dt. 24.01.2008 passed by Recovery Officer [R.O.] [Shri Udai Pal Singh] of this Tribunal dismissing the Appellant's-Intervener's application in Recovery Proceeding [R.P.] No. 40 of 2006 for protecting occupancy rights in the following properties under challenge in this Appeal; i. Godown No. 201, Building No. C, Antop Hill Warehousing

• Application No. 21 of 2008. Case: Uttam Galva Steels Ltd. Vs Bank of India and Ors.. Mumbai Debt Recovery Tribunals

  1. The Intervener seeks to recall the declaration made by this tribunal in judgement Dt. 27.09.2004 while allowing Original Application [O.A.] No. 235 of 01 [High Court suit No. 2169 of 1992] and the Recovery Certificate [R.C.] issued pursuant thereto that the outstandings are secured by valid Equitable Mortgage of land bearing Survey No. 48 Hissa

• Application No. 16 of 2007. Case: Moushir Jamal Masalawala Vs Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. and Ors.. Mumbai Debt Recovery Tribunals

  1. This is Securitisation application (for short S.A.) for quashing and setting aside orders passed by the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (for short the Ld. CMM) on 11.05.2006 and 04.08.2008 in Miscellaneous application No. 165/Misc/2006 and Notice No. 64/N/2006, respectively. The application is also for quashing and setting aside the auction of...

• Application No. 28 of 2007. Case: Mr. Kamlesh R. Shah Vs Bank of Maharashtra and Ors.. Mumbai Debt Recovery Tribunals

  1. The office premises being Unit No. 201, Level 2, Bhupati Chambers, 13, Mathew Road, Opera House, Mumbai 400 004 admeasuring about 5180.18 sq. ft. are subject matter of this Securitisation Application [S.A.]/say. The Applicant filed the Application for declaration that notice Dt. 24.11.2006 u/s. 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of F...

• Appeal No. 34 of 2008. Case: Vitro Pharma Products Ltd. Vs Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd. [ARCIL]. Mumbai Debt Recovery Tribunals

  1. The Certificate Debtor in Recovery Proceeding [R.P.] No. 224 of 2003 has filed this Appeal for declaration that the public auction of Plot No. 89 A-B, Govt. Industrial Estate, Charkop, Kandivali West, Mumbai 400 067 is illegal. The Appellant has come out with case that Punjab National Bank [PNB] who was the original Certificate Holder, for recov...

Featured documents

• T.A. 110 of 2002. Case: Allahabad Bank Vs Chandra Finance and Sons and Ors.. Kolkatta Debt Recovery Tribunals

  5. Mr. Tewari, the learned Advocate has submitted in extenso, for the reason of making absolute the interim reliefs granted to the applicant Bank by order No. 42. But the learned Advocate has submitted also for making successful the Section 19 application preferred by the applicant Bank against the ...

• T.A. No. 160 of 2002. Case: Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd. Vs Puhkar Malhotra and Anr.. Kolkatta Debt Recovery Tribunals

  1. Mr. V. Raja Rao, the learned Advocate appears for the applicant Bank but neither of the impleaded respondents has appeared this day, in spite of the due service of notice (repeatedly) upon each of them. 2. January 17, 1992 is the relevant day and date when the applicant Bank instituted one suit ...

• O.A. No. 180 of 2001. Case: Central Bank of India Vs Vidarbha Elastomers Profiles Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.. Nagpur Debt Recovery Tribunals

  1. The borrower company (defendant No. 1) and its directors (defendants 2 and 3) in their capacity as guarantors have been sued in this O.A. for recovery of Rs. 37,21,367.83 towards Cash Credit A/c; Rs. 5,61,463.80 towards Cash Credit (Project); Rs. 6,14,083.29 towards Overdraft Account; and Rs. 15,...

• O.A. No. 134 of 2006. Case: Indian Bank Vs Kiran Kapil Dave and Santosh Mewalal Chauhan. Mumbai Debt Recovery Tribunals

  1. The applicant, Indian Bank, are a body corporate constituted under the banking companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having their Head Office having its Head Office at 66, Rajaji Salai. Chennai 600 and a Branch Office at Rele Smurti, 1st Floor, 679 S.V. Road, Malad (W) ...

• Securitisation Application No. 5 of 2004. Case: Kushal N. Aggarwal Vs Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd.. Mumbai Debt Recovery Tribunals

  1. This Application under Section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Securitisation Act') pertains to Bungalow No. 4A, Gulab View Bungalow, Ground Floor, Near Basant Cinema, Mihishad Co-operative Housing...

• Review Application No. 5 of 2005. Case: Pandurang Vs State Bank of Hyderabad and Anr.. Nagpur Debt Recovery Tribunals

  2. The Securitisation application (Appeal) was directed against respondent Nos. 1/2's taking symbolic possession under Section 13(4) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, (SRFAESI Act) of Plot No. 9 M.H. 3388 Mouza Khamla, Nagpur. In the...

• O.A. No. 137 of 2005. Case: Sicom Limited Vs Dinesh Baburao More and Anr.. Mumbai Debt Recovery Tribunals

  1. The guarantors are sued in this Original Application (O.A.) for recovery of Rs. 2,97,00,527/- with interest @20.5% p.a. with quarterly rests from the date of filing the original application till full realization. They are promoter-Directors of Dinesh Agro Products Limited, the Borrower. 2. The...

• I.A. 133 of 2004 in O.A. 51 of 2003. Case: State Bank of India Vs Paramount Sinters and Ors.. Nagpur Debt Recovery Tribunals

  3. The learned defence Counsel has drawn my attention to proviso to Section 19(1) of RDDB & FI Act and Section 13(7) of the Securitisation Act for urging that applicant Bank has to make election and should proceed either with O.A. or under Securitisation Act. 4. The learned Counsel for the...

• O.A. No. 69 of 2001. Case: UCO Bank Vs Hemakuta Industrial Investment Co. Ltd. and Ors.. Mumbai Debt Recovery Tribunals

  2. When the matter came up for hearing before this Tribunal, an application was given on behalf of the applicants that the defendants had preferred an appeal against certain interim reliefs granted by the Hon'ble High Court vide an Appeal Lodging No. 484/1992. When the appeal had come up before the ...

• T.A. No. 70 of 2002-DRT-III. Case: United Bank Vs Hotel Southway and Ors.. Kolkatta Debt Recovery Tribunals

  1. In compliance with the Order No. 51 made by this Tribunal on Tuesday, April 2, 2002, Shri Mrinal Kanti Ghosh, the Manager of the applicant Bank has appeared this day before this Tribunal along with one application being meant for the necessary order to be made and passed in this case, instituted ...