Rules made thereunder. Section 18 of SARFAESI Act provides a right
to appeal to DRAT against orders of DRT passed under Section ... also be noticed.
The DRT and DRAT are established under Section 3(1) and 8(1) respectively and
the respective exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal
that the notice under Section 13(2) and the notice under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for short ... Section 13(4)(a) read with Sections 13 (6) , (8), 17(1) and Rules 8(1), (3), (6) and Rule 9(9) comprehends
review petition would not be
maintainable before the DRAT both for the reason that Order 47
Rule 7 itself is inapplicable under Section ... Others, (2013) 8 SCC 320 to buttress the submission
that a review petition cannot be equated with the original
proceeding. Further, contrasting Rule
challenges order dated September 10, 2002 passed in the Case No. DRAT/CAL/8/2002/874 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ronojit Kumar Mitra ... said claim case the petitioner filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure . The said application was rejected
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4724 of 2018(8)
7/19
Judicial Dictionary, Vol. 4, 3rd Edn. p. 2836)
says 'specifically ... case,
AIR 1941 Bom 148 is more assertive than
explanatory, and ipse drat, even if judicial, do not
validate themselves. We are inclined to agree
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4724 of 2018(8)
7/19
Judicial Dictionary, Vol. 4, 3rd Edn. p. 2836)
says 'specifically ... case,
AIR 1941 Bom 148 is more assertive than
explanatory, and ipse drat, even if judicial, do not
validate themselves. We are inclined to agree
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4724 of 2018(8)
7/19
Judicial Dictionary, Vol. 4, 3rd Edn. p. 2836)
says 'specifically ... case,
AIR 1941 Bom 148 is more assertive than
explanatory, and ipse drat, even if judicial, do not
validate themselves. We are inclined to agree
Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH W.P.(C) 6606/2019 Page 4 of 8
KUMAR
Signing Date:06.10.2022
16:29:24
for filing of written submissions ... cross suit. Under
Section 19(8) and (9) of the DRT Act read with Order 8
Rule 6A(1) of the Civil Procedure Code
prayers. According to him, Bank has accepted
One Time Settlement proposal.
8] Mr. C.S. Lahabar, learned Advocate for respondent no.3,
has invited ... Recovery Officer has rejected the application
under Rule 60 moved by petitioner. The DRT and thereafter DRAT
have accepted non-compliance with requirement
Sunil Poddar & Ors vs Union Bank Of India on 8 January, 2008
Equivalent citations
