Drat Allahabad Court December 2004 Judgments

State Bank of India Vs. Vidya Foundry and Engineering

Court: DRAT Allahabad

1. This appeal has been preferred against the part of the judgment and order passed by the then Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Jabalpur in Original Application No. 48/1998. This appeal has been filed against the dismissal of the part of the claims of the appellant-bank towards the interest portion. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 1. The defendant-respondent No.1 is a partnership firm, of which defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners and is engaged in the business of foundry and engineering works. Defendant No.4 was also a partnership firm, but since 1991 it became a proprietary firm of defendant No.5. On request being made by the defendant No.1 through its partners, appellant bank sanctioned term loan limit of Rs. 9 lacs, cash credit limit of Rs. 10.50 lacs and bank guarantee limit of Rs. 75,000/ -. In consideration of such sanction of loan, the defendant No.1 through its partners executed requisite banking documents, on which terms and conditions were also incorporated as per...

Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Shiv Kumar Jaiswal and ors.

Court: DRAT Allahabad

Reported in: 3(2006)BC98

1. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23rd September, 2002 passed by the then Presiding Officer, DRT, Allahabad in T.A. No. 382 of 2000, whereby and whereunder the claim of the appellant-Bank has been dismissed to the effect that the settlement amount of Rs. 10.40 lacs had already been deposited by the defendant-respondent with the Bank. 1. The respondent-defendant No. 1 is a liquor contractor and he approached the appellant-Bank, Johnstongjanj Branch, Allahabad for a loan of Rs. 9.00 lacs for his business and also promised to pay the said loan amount with interest. The defendant Nos. 2 to 15 and late Shri Ashok Kumar Jaiswal stood surety for repayment of the loan amount and also deposited their Title Deeds of immovable properties, details of which were given in the foot of the plaint itself. On 9th July, 1994 such loan was advanced to the defendant No. 1 by the Bank for repayment with interest @ 17% per annum with quarterly rest. The usual documents fo...

State Bank of India Vs. Van Pharma Laboratories

Court: DRAT Allahabad

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21st January, 2001 passed by the then Presiding Officer, DRT, Jabalpur in T.A. No. 184/98, whereby and whereunder the claim of the appellant Bank to the tune of Rs. 14,60,288.80 has been rejected and dismissed. 1. The respondent defendant No. 1 M/s. Van Pharma Laboratories is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of medicines. The respondent defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners of the respondent No. 1 firm. The respondent No. 1 Firm enjoyed the cash credit facility from the appellant Bank and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 stood as guarantors. As per the plaint story the respondent No. 1 through its partners respondent defendant Nos. 2 and 3 requested the appellant Bank for grant of working capital and as such cash credit facility of Rs. 2.15 lakh was granted by the Bank and sanctioned as per the terms and conditions attached to the agreement which was executed by the respondent defendant...

industrial Development Bank of Vs. Malwa Sahkari Shakkar Karkhana

Court: DRAT Allahabad

Reported in: III(2006)BC54

1. This appeal has been preferred against the part of the judgment and order dated 19th June, 2002 passed by the then Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Jabalpur in T.A. No. 88/98. The appellant Industrial Development Bank of India (hereinafter shall be called as the Bank) had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,16,57,0427- against the defendant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 together pendente lite and future interest @ 16.44% per annum together with other consequential reliefs before the District Judge, Indore. It must be mentioned here that at the time of filing of the suit no notices were served as required under Section 80 of the CPC on the respondent-defendants as the law requires so by praying that necessity arose to file the suit premature because of urgency without compliance of Section 80 (1) of the CPC The plaint was ordered to be returned as no urgency was found and as such the plaint was taken back from the side of the appellant-Bank and it was re-filed on 11th February, 1998 itself, so t...