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

Case NumberO.A. No. 69 of 2001
Party NameUCO Bank Vs Hemakuta Industrial Investment Co. Ltd. and Ors.
CounselFor Appellant: Pragna Thakur and Co. and For Respondents: K.V. Aiyar and Associates
JudgesH.T. Sampat, Presiding Officer
CitationII (2006) BC 166
Judgement DateApril 01, 2003
CourtMumbai Debt Recovery Tribunals


H.T. Sampat, Presiding Officer

  1. This is a transferred application for recovery of Rs. 67,81,874.94 (Rupees sixty-seven lakh eighty-one thousand eight hundred seventy-four and paise ninety-four only).

  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 Hon'ble Division Bench, the Advocate for the defendants had tendered minutes of the order for the decree on admission and had requested the Hon'ble High Court to grant instalments. The Hon'ble High Court thereafter passed a decree in accordance with the terms of the said minutes. A copy of the said minutes is annexed at Exh. "A" to the said application Exh. 14.

  3. It is further contended by the applicants that the Hon'ble High Court had passed a decree for a sum of Rs. 67,50,000/- with interest @19% on the principal sum of Rs. 44,06,075.55 and the costs of Rs. 9,650/-. These facts could be gathered from letter dated 8.7.1992 written by the applicant's Advocate, a copy of which is produced at Exh. "B".

  4. Thereafter the suit came to be transferred to this Tribunal. The original minutes of order are now not traceable in the High Court. However, in view of the fact that the Hon'ble High Court had disposed of the suit in terms of the minutes, a recovery certificate in terms of the said decree be issued.

  5. The defendants were directed to submit their say. The defendants have filed their say at Exh. 16. The defendants have not disputed the statements of facts mentioned in paras 1 to 4 of the application Exh. 14 which states about passing of a decree in accordance with the minutes of the order at Exh. "A". What all is stated is that if the...

To continue reading

Request your trial