Drat Madras Court November 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mrs. P. Vasantha and anr. Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Nov-27-2002
Reported in: I(2004)BC166
1. The petitioners have filed these petitions for transfer of the TA-393/2001 & TA-355/2001 from DRT-II, Chennai, to any other Tribunal.The respondent Bank filed TA-393/2001 against the 1st appellant and TA-355/2001 against the 2nd appellant, before the DRT. In TA-355/2001, Mr. G. Purushothaman is the principal borrower and his wife Mrs. P.Vasantha is the guarantor. In TA-393/2001, Mrs. P. Vasantha, the 1st appellant is the principal borrower and her husband Mr. G.Purushothaman, the 2nd appellant is the guarantor. These cases are pending before DRT-II, Chennai. The appellants contend that the Presiding Officer, DRT-II, is very biased in conducting the case and the appellants have apprehension that there will not be any fair trial before the Presiding Officer, DRT-II, regarding their cases.2. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the 1st appellant in MA-253/2002 filed IA-717/2002 in TA-355/2001 and that petition has not been disposed of and when the appellant's Counsel requested...
Canara Bank Vs. A. Chidambaram
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Nov-25-2002
Reported in: III(2003)BC21
1. The Bank filed original application (TA) before the DRT for recovery of the amount. The TA was disposed of by the Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chennai, and the TA was allowed and decree was passed as against defendants 1 to 5 and D-6 was discharged from the loan liabilities.Aggrieved against the order passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT-II, discharging D-6, the Bank has preferred this appeal.2. Counsel for the appellant Bank submitted that the respondent D-6 executed continuing guarantee under Ex. A9 and as it is a continuing guarantee. D-6 is liable till he revoked that guarantee and any revocation letter sent by D-6 will operate only with regard to the future transactions after the revocation notice and for the prior transactions this continuing guarantee will hold good and D-6 will be liable for the suit claim until it was revoked and only for the future transactions D-6 may not be held liable. Counsel for the respondent D-6 submitted that it is not a continuing guarantee and as ...
V. Gopal Kini Vs. Central Bank of India
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Nov-08-2002
Reported in: I(2004)BC28
1. Final Order was passed by the PO, DRT, Ernakulam, in TA-1169/97 on 1.12.2000. While passing final Order the PO, DRT has observed in Clause (c) of the Decree/Order that "As the Counsel for D4 reports that D4 is only a guarantor and that only in case the sale proceeds of A and B scheduled properties is inadequate to satisfy the debt above, C and D scheduled properties may be proceeded against, as far as possible sale of C and D scheduled properties is ordered to be invoked only after proceeding against the A and B scheduled properties. The sale of the properties he held with all possible speed." Subsequently, the Bank filed IA-734/2001 to correct the Order in TA-1169/97 granting a Certificate for realisation of the amounts from the A to D scheduled properties of the defendants simultaneously. In the IA, the hank has stated that since the liability of the principal debtor and guarantor is coextensive, the decree holder is entitled to proceed against the principal debtor and the guaran...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›