Back
DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, CJ
Hongkong And Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited – Appellant
Versus
Smt. K. Uma – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judgment must consider all issues raised. (Para 1 , 16 , 20) |
| 2. appellants claim third-party status and allege fraud. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. court addresses procedural issues and the need for comprehensive evaluation. (Para 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. drt's findings must be based on all relevant evidence. (Para 11 , 15 , 21) |
| 5. both appeals are remanded for fresh consideration. (Para 19) |
JUDGMENT : 2nd May, 2025
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
1. Appeal No. 235 of 2018 has arisen against a judgment and order dated 13th April, 2018, passed by Learned DRT-II, Hyderabad allowing S.A. 93 of 2017 (Old S.A. 33 of 2013) (Smt. K. Uma & Another -vs- Hongkong And Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited & Others).
2. Appeal No. 273 of 2018 has arisen against a judgment and order dated 13th April, 2018, passed by Learned DRT-II, Hyderabad allowing S.A. 94 of 2017 (Old S.A. 34 of 2013) (Kuppili Satyanarayana Bharani -vs- Hongkong And Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited & Others).
3. Since facts and issues involved in both the appeals are similar, both the appeals are being decided simultaneously by a common judgment.
4. As per pleadings of the parties, it is stated that S.A. 93 of 2017, under Section 17
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
