M.A. 24 of 2005. Case: State Bank of Travancore Vs Indian Standard Casting Co. (P) Ltd.. Kolkatta Debt Recovery Tribunals

Case NumberM.A. 24 of 2005
CounselFor Appellant: J. Brahmachari, Adv. and For Respondents: P.S. Banerjee, Adv. led by and P. Sil, Adv.
JudgesD.C. Thakur, Presiding Officer
IssueDebts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 - Rules 11 and 12; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 2002; Evidence Act, 1872
CitationIV (2006) BC 254
Judgement DateApril 24, 2006
CourtKolkatta Debt Recovery Tribunals


D.C. Thakur, Presiding Officer

  1. Mr. J. Brahmachari, the learned Advocate appears for the miscellaneous applicant Bank.

  2. Mr. P.S. Banerjee, the learned Advocate led by Mr. P. Sil, the learned Advocate appears for the opposite party defendants.

  3. One joint petition of compromise duly verified by Mr. Arup Chattopadhyay as the Manager of the Bank and Mr. Suresh Kumar Agarwal, the defendant No. 2 has been presented before this Tribunal on Monday, March 20,2006, even when the Bank's miscellaneous application for restoration of its claim case is pending before this Tribunal as well as the other miscellaneous application is pending for its disposal before this Tribunal.

  4. The joint petition of compromise shall be assigned to the value of the last word; and it shall have the lasting effect on anything found contrary to the deducible, specific intention of the compromising parties.

  5. Before dealing with both the miscellaneous application as well as the joint petition of compromise this Tribunal intends to describe herein the short factual background of the claim application which has been, on and from Thursday, July 31, 2003, against the number of ten defendants for the purpose of recovery of an amount of Rs. 3,38,27,803.30, against those defendants.

  6. After having taken the cognizance of the claim application of the Bank, this Tribunal has been pleased to issue the summons upon those defendants to file before this Tribunal the written statement in answer to the claim application of the Bank.

  7. During the pendency of the above claim case, the defendants, particularly the defendants who created the equitable mortgage in favour of the Bank, were restrained by order No. 3 made and passed on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 from alienating the mortgaged properties; and the Bank's officer was appointed as the Special Officer over the mortgaged properties on that date.

  8. The defendant Nos. 1 and 4 entered their appearance through their learned Advocate on Monday, February 2,2004; and the defendant Nos. 3,5, and 9 also put their appearance before this Tribunal on Friday, April 2,2004 in the similar manner and way. On Friday, July 2, 2004, Mr. P. Sil, the learned Advocate did appear for the defendant Nos. 1, 3,4,5 and 9 and filed the duly executed Vakalatnama, being the part of the record.

  9. Through the report of the learned Special Officer, this Tribunal could also come to know that the defendant No. 10, M/s. Bengal Metal Industries was then a...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT