Drat Madras Court October 2002 Judgments
Vysali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. the Federal Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Oct-25-2002
Reported in: I(2003)BC79
1. The respondent Bank filed the Original Application (OA) before the Presiding Officer, DRT, Ernakulam, for recovery of the amount due to the Bank. Then the case was taken up for evidence, the defendants urged with regard to the maintainability of the OA due to the fact that the loans were availed by the defendants from the consortium Bank and also in view of the counter-claim raised in the Reply statement. The issue with regard to the maintainability of the OA was argued before the Presiding Officer, DRT, by both parties and the Presiding Officer, DRT, by her order dated 27.2,2002 held that the OA is perfectly maintainable subject to the merits of the case and the plea with regard to the counter-claim can be decided only after recording evidence in the case and posted the matter for evidence. Aggrieved against that order the appellant-Ist defendant has filed this appeal.2. The appellant contends that the appellant availed the loan facility from consortium Banks and the present OA fi...
Tag this Judgment!A.R. Rajasekaran Vs. Indian Overseas Bank
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Oct-25-2002
Reported in: I(2003)BC77
1. Final Order was passed in the TA on 21.11.2000 and Recovery Certificate was ordered to be issued. It is stated in the order that on 16.10.1997, D1, D2 and D4 to D6 entered appearance through Counsel and fresh summons were ordered against D3. The case was posted for filing Reply Statement on 15.1.1998. The defendants filed IAs 22 and 23/1998 asking for time on the plea that their documents and correspondence were seized by the CBI. Then the case was posted finally on 27.7.1998.D1, D2 and D4 to D6 filed petition and again the case was re-posted for 9.11.1998 for reply statement and for impleadment of LRs of D3. No reply statement was filed and the case was posted to 6.4.1999. Then the petitions in IAs 1336 and 1337/99 filed by the defendants were allowed on condition that defendants pay 1/5th of the suit claim as the petitions were accompanied by reply statement, failing which the petitions would stand dismissed. Then at the request of Counsel for defendants, time again granted for f...
Tag this Judgment!Canara Bank Vs. Steels India and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Oct-22-2002
Reported in: I(2003)BC85
1. The Bank filed the suit before the City Civil Court, Bangalore, in OS-922/1993. After formation of DRT it was transferred to the Tribunal and renumbered as OA 683/1995. The OA was dismissed for non-representation of the applicant Bank on 9.4.1996. The applicant Bank filed MA-16/1996 to set aside that dismissal order and the Tribunal dismissed the same on 28.2.2002. Aggrieved against the order the appellant Bank has preferred this Appeal.2. In the order, the Presiding Officer, DRT, has observed that the applicant Bank appointed one Mr. Anand, Law Officer, to handle the case and one Mr. P.V. Aithal was handling the case in City Civil Court and he was aware of the case handled by Mr. Anand and when the case was called on 9.4.1996 neither Mr. Anand nor Mr. Aithal appeared before the Tribunal on account of communication gap and the case came to be dismissed for default. The Presiding Officer, DRT, has found that although one Mr. Prabhu claims that Mr. Aithal was following the case, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Tolaram Budhia and ors. Vs. Indian Bank
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Oct-17-2002
Reported in: I(2003)BC26
1. The respondent-Bank filed the Original Application (OA) for recovery of a sum of Rs. 19,00,78,259.15 p with future interest at the rate of 23.25% with quarterly rests from the date of application till the date of realization with costs and for sale of the application schedule properties. Summons were issued to the defendants. Counsel Mr. N.C.Rangarajan filed Vakalat for D-7 to D-8. There was no representation for defendants 1 to 6 and so fresh summons by RPAD and publication was ordered. There was no representation for the defendants on 21.7.1998, 15.12.1998 and 19.2.1999. The defendants were called absent and set ex parte and the Order was passed by the PO, DRT, Chennai, on 30.11.1999.The appellants filed IA-3310/2000 to set aside the ex parte decree.That petition was heard by the PO, DRT, and it was dismissed. Aggrieved against that Order the appellant has preferred this appeal.2. Counsel for the appellant strenuously argued that no notice was served on the appellants and they ca...
Tag this Judgment!Neetu Autos Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Uco Bank
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Oct-16-2002
Reported in: I(2003)BC62
1. The appeal is directed as against the final order dated 21.3.2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chennai, In TA-876/1997. The Bank filed the suit against the defendants for recovery of the amount due to the Bank. During the pendency of the suit, the matter was settled between the parties for a sum of Rs. 62 lakhs and the defendants agreed to pay that amount and it was accepted by the Bank also by means of a Compromise Memo dated 13.3.1999 and the amount was payable by 30.6.1999. On various dates till 27.8.1999, the defendants paid Rs. 30,50,000/- and as on 27.8.1999 there was balance amount of Rs. 31,50,000/-. Thereafter, the defendants again requested the Bank by their own letter dated 18.2.2001 to give further concessions for settlement of the amount by giving benefit under the revised Reserve Bank of India (RBI) guidelines. The appellant has stated in that letter dated 18.1.2001 that the appellant has since obtained information regarding revised RBI guidelines on Compro...
Tag this Judgment!K. Thangavel and ors. Vs. the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Oct-10-2002
Reported in: I(2003)BC33
1. The appeal is filed against the order dated 23.5.2002 passed by the PO, DRT, Coimbatore, dismissing the petition IA-3/2002 filed by the appellant for setting aside the ex parte decree passed by the PO, DRT, Chennai, in TA-1838/1997. TA-1838/1997 was disposed of on 9.11.2000.2. The decree was passed by the Civil Court and after enactment of RDDB&FI Act, the Bank filed application under Section 19 of the Act on the basis of the decree passed by the Civil Court on 30.6.1993. The PO, DRT, Chennai, passed order in the TA (TA-1838.97) ordering issue of Recovery Certificate in favour of the Bank for a sum of Rs. 23,13,046.50 p. with interest as stated in the order. After the formation of DRT in Coimbatore, this case was transferred to DRT, Coimbatore, and there it was numbered as TA-1404/2002. The appellant filed IA-3/2002 before DRT, Coimbatore, for setting aside that ex parte decree. The PO, DRT, has dismissed that petition holding that the petition was made at a very belated stage ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›