Drat Madras Court December 2002 Judgments
State Bank of India Vs. Deepthi Cements (P.) Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Dec-31-2002
Reported in: III(2003)BC41
1. The appellant Bank filed original application (OA) for recovery of Rs. 11,51,996.50 p. with interest at 15.25% per annum. The DRT allowed the application holding that the Bank is entitled to Rs. 7,50,000/- with Simple Interest @ 10% per annum from the date of lending till realisation. Aggrieved against the order the appellant Bank has filed this appeal.2. Counsel for the appellant Bank submits that as per the ledger extract the outstanding amount as per the loan and interest up to the date of filing of the OA, the amount due from the defendants to the Bank is Rs. 11,51,996.50 p and only for that amount the OA was filed but the Presiding Officer, DRT, allowed the application only for Rs. 7,50,000/- with simple interest @ 10% per annum. The respondents remained absent. Counsel for the appellant Bank submitted that as per the documents and agreement entered into between the Bank and the defendants, the defendants arc liable to pay interest at the rate of 15.25% and the Presiding Offic...
Tag this Judgment!Syndicate Bank Vs. Thorimalai Estate and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Dec-30-2002
Reported in: III(2003)BC37
1. The Bank filed Original Application (OA) for recovery of a sum of Rs. 99,45,588/- with interest at 18.75% per annum compounded quarterly from the date of application till the date of realisation. After contest that OA was allowed declaring that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount with interest at 18.75% p.a.compounded quarterly from the date of application till the date of realisation and also to proceed with the mortgaged property in case of default of payment within three months.2. As against that order, review application was filed by two defendants D1 and D2. In that Review Application, the defendants contended that the loan granted by the Bank to them is a farm loan and it is an agricultural loan and in agricultural loan the interest cannot be compounded quarterly and penal interest is also not payable and the Bank is not entitled to claim or enforce varied rate of interest and the interest has to be brought down and the liability of the defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit I. Patel and ors. Vs. Syndicate Bank
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
Reported in: I(2004)BC3
1. Aggrieved against the Order passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Hyderabad, in dismissing the petition to condone the delay of 82 days in filing the Review Petition, the appeal is preferred.2. Counsel for the appellant submits that after the disposal of the Original Application (OA) by the PO, DRT, there was some problem between the appellants and their Counsel and the Counsel did not return all the papers to the appellants and the appellants had to get certified copies of papers and then they had to take steps for filing in review petition and so the delay of 82 days had occurred in filing the Review petition and the delay must be condoned. Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that what all stated in the Review petition are only appealable in the Appellate Court and further, there is no sufficient and proper reason given for condoning the delay of 82 days in filing the Review petition. He further submitted that for the outstanding due to the Bank, Suit was filed in the Civil C...
Tag this Judgment!Vijaya Bank Vs. Murudeshwara Foods and Exports
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Dec-13-2002
Reported in: III(2003)BC80
1. The proposed party M/s. Naveen Hotels Ltd., filed IA-16 for impleading it as party as additional defendant in the OA and that petition was allowed by the Tribunal. Aggrieved against the order the appellant Bank has come forward with this appeal.2. Counsel for the appellant Bank submitted that M/s. Naveen Hotels is not at all a necessary party to the OA and the proposed party the 2nd respondent does not get any legal right over the Hosabettu Unit of the 1st respondent and the 3rd party the 2nd respondent claims as right under an unregistered agreement and the proposed party the 2nd respondent has not produced any document to show its ownership to claim right over the said property and the alleged charge said to have been registered by the Registrar of Companies on 25.8.1998 does not convey any legal right as all the movable and immovable properties are mortgaged in favour of the Bank and said charge could not have been registered on the basis of the alleged agreement and as the prop...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›