Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.41 seconds)

Rama Kant Upmanyu vs State Bank Of India on 25 October, 2002

4. The learned Counsel for the parties were heard on this point at length. Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate submitted that after deletion of second relief the appellant has only challenged the order passed by Tribunal rejecting his application under Order IX, Rule 13 of C.P.C. through which no amount of debt due has been determined, therefore, compliance of Section 21 is not to be made in this appeal. He submitted that this question arose in a writ petition filed by Gemini Arts (P) Ltd. v. Indian Bank, and the Hon'ble High Court, Madras took the view that the requirement to deposit "determined" amount while filing the appeal could arise only in appeal against the final orders and not in other appeals against order under Section 19(6) of the Act. Mr. Murari submitted that this judgment throws light on this subject.
Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Southern Explosives Company Pvt Ltd vs Gulf Oil Corporation Limited on 19 September, 2011

25. The learned senior counsel for the respondent also relied on the decision of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court reported in (Ultramatix systems Private Limited vs. State Bank of India and others) 2007 (5) Bombay Current Reports page No.862 wherein the Division Bench held, while dealing with the word 'admission' that the statement contained in the balance sheet and profit and loss account of the company can be an admission of liability unless the subsequent balance sheet were filed to show that either the amount have been paid or were not due and payable and or any other materials produced to hold otherwise. If that exercise is not done, normally, the presumption is, the entries shown in the balance sheet would amount to an admission.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - B Rajendran - Full Document
1