Search Results for "DRAT order"

Trending :

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensat...
Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Sui...
Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Incredible Dying Declaration...
Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Under Section 182 IPC for Lack of Val...

Search Results for "DRAT order"

173 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 173 result(s)

High Court

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging DRAT Order in Debt Recovery Matter — Maintainability of Appeal Under Section 18 of RDDBFI Act, 1993. The court held that an appeal against an interim order under Section 17 of the Act is maintainable before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal under Section 18, and the Tribunal's order refusing to waive pre-deposit was not perverse or without jurisdiction.

23 Jun 2014

The petitioners, M/s. IDEB Projects Pvt Ltd and others, filed writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging DRT Orders on Territorial Jurisdiction and Interim Relief. Held that DRT Ahmedabad had jurisdiction to entertain the bank's recovery application and that the Appellate Tribunal's refusal to grant interim relief was justified.

27 Feb 2006

The petitioner, M/s. GTCL Mobile-Com Technology Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, challenged two orders: (1) an order dated 14-11...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Guarantors' Waiver of Pre-deposit in Debt Recovery Appeal — Section 21 of RDB Act Does Not Mandate Pre-deposit for Guarantors When Principal Debtor Has Already Deposited Substantial Amount. The court held that the DRAT's discretion under Section 21 must be exercised judiciously, and since the principal debtor deposited Rs. 1.5 crores, the guarantors' appeal should not require additional pre-deposit.

29 Jun 2017

The judgment concerns two writ petitions filed by guarantors (Mr. Jaisingrao Ghodke and Smt. Nalini Jadhav) challenging an order dated 4/5/2017 passed...

High Court

High Court of Karnataka Allows Writ Petition Against DRAT Order Rejecting Additional Evidence Application on Technical Ground. Wrong Mention of Provision Does Not Oust Jurisdiction if Court Otherwise Has Power to Entertain Application.

28 Jan 2016

The petitioner, Neuropsychiatry and Critical Care Hospital Private Limited, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of In...

High Court

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging DRT Order in SARFAESI Act Matter — One Time Settlement Not Binding as Bank Did Not Accept Offer. Court Held That Mere Submission of OTS Proposal Does Not Create Binding Contract; Bank's Rejection Valid.

8 Jul 2024

The petitioners, borrowers of the respondent bank, challenged the order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Bangalore in Diary No...

High Court

Gujarat High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging DRT Order in SARFAESI Matter — Upholds Bank's Possession for Non-Performing Asset. Held that DRT's refusal to grant interim relief was not perverse or without jurisdiction, and the petition under Article 226/227 was not maintainable as alternative remedy of appeal under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act was available.

13 Mar 2026

The petitioners, Prakashbhai Baldevbhai Patel and another, filed a Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India b...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Order in Bank Guarantee Dispute. The court held that the Debt Recovery Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain claims for recovery of amounts due under bank guarantees, and the petitioner's challenge was without merit.

15 Sep 2017

The petitioner, Gammon India Limited, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 28th September 2...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Review Petition in Debt Recovery Case — No Error Apparent on Record. Review Petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC fails as petitioner failed to deposit amount as directed, and no grounds for review were made out.

5 Feb 2016

The petitioner, M/s MRB Roadconst. Pvt. Ltd., filed a Review Petition before the Bombay High Court seeking review of an order dated 10th June 2015 pas...

High Court

Gujarat High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging DRT Order as Time-Barred Under Section 17(1) of SARFAESI Act. Limitation Period of 45 Days for Filing Securitisation Application is Mandatory and Cannot Be Extended by the Tribunal.

23 Mar 2026

The petitioner, M/s. Zen Lifecare Ltd., challenged the orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Ahmedabad, dated 20th November 2020 and 6th February 20...

High Court

Bombay High Court Full Bench Upholds Appellant Bank in Debenture Trustee Suit, Holding Civil Court Jurisdiction Not Barred by RDB Act. Bank Acting as Debenture Trustee for Recovery of Debentureholders' Dues Is Not a 'Debt Due to Bank' Under Section 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993; Suit Maintainable on Original Side.

7 Mar 2016

The litigation arose from a suit filed in February 2002 by a banking company acting as a debenture trustee for recovery of Rs. 997 lacs together with ...

5 6 7 8 9

Full Name * Username * Mobile Number * Email Address * State/UT * City * Password * Confirm Password * Referral Code (Optional)