Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.75 seconds)
Inder Singh vs Branch Manager on 6 August, 2022 cites

Inder Mohan vs The Manager (Nri Division), State Bank ... on 26 November, 2014

".......That the appellant/plaintiff on making inquiries learnt that the respondents/defendants no.4 & 5 Shri Joginder Pal Gupta and Shri Tarun Guputa had taken loan from the respondent no.1 PNBHFL on 9th April, 2007 by giving alleged title deeds of the said flat to the CS No. 15676/16 Inder Singh Vs. Branch Manager, Indian Bank 11 respondent no. 1 PNBHFL; that the said title deeds are forged and fabricated; that the said loan was granted owing to conspiracy of senior officials of the respondent no.1 PNBHFL; that the appellant/plaintiff challenged the notices dated 18th February, 2009 of the respondent no.1 PNBHFL of sale of the subject flat by filing SA No. 107/2009 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT)-III, Delhi; that the respondent/defendant no.2 Allahabad Bank also issued notice dated 5th July, 2010 alleging that the respondents/defendants no. 5 & 7 namely Shri Tarun Gupta and Shri Sita Ram had got loan from the said Bank by depositing the title deeds of the said flat.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Industrial Credit And Investment ... vs Grapco Industries Ltd. And Ors on 14 May, 1999

(IV) The Ld. Counsel for plaintiff strenuously argued that this was a case where the property owned by the plaintiff and the one mortgaged were different and that the bank through conspiracy or mistake had wrongly attached and sold the plaintiff's property under SARFAESI Act. He has further submitted that only the civil court can adjudicate the claim of the plaintiff. I find that the aforesaid submission has to be rejected for the reason that as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation v. Grapco Industries Limited 1999 4 SCC 710 and also as noted by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Utpala Mukherjee (supra), the DRT has been vested with sufficient powers to decide all the issues arising and in fact, the jurisdiction of DRT is wider than that of the civil court. This would also be clear from the provisions of Section 22 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 which deals with the procedures and powers of the DRT and the DRAT. The claim of the plaintiff as noted above could have been and in fact has been adjudicated and finally laid to rest by the DRT vide its order dated 07.09.2015 and the appeal of which filed by the plaintiff before DRAT was dismissed for non prosecution and therefore, has become final in so far as any of the measures taken by the defendant bank. For this reason also, I find that the present suit deserves to be dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 101 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

Onil Sadh vs Federal Bank Ltd. And Ors. on 6 November, 2015

The Hon'ble High Court in Neha Aggarwal (supra) also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Onil Sadh v. Federal Bank Ltd. 2015 224 DLT 556 wherein it was held that the claim to the mortgaged property adversely to the mortgagor or the mortgagee can be made only before the DRT and not before the civil court. The plaintiff had argued before the Hon'ble DRT that the suit property was distinct from the property mortgaged.
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 8 - J Nath - Full Document
1   2 3 Next