Drat Madras Court March 2002 Judgments

Mrs. Shylaja Kumari Premlal Vs. State Bank of India

Court: DRAT Madras

Reported in: I(2004)BC1

1. Aggrieved against the Order passed by the DRT-I, Chennai, in allowing the petition for amendment of the plaint, the appeal is directed.2. The applicant Bank filed a petition IA-1729/2000 in TA-75/98 for amendment of the plaint stating that the 5th defendant has created equitable mortgage of the property situated at Trivandrum Corporation in favour of the Bank by deposit of title deeds at Trivandrum Branch on 24.2.1992 but while filing suit by the Bank that property was not included in the Suit since the Sub-Court, Trivellore, did not have territorial jurisdiction under Section 16(C) of the CPC for passing mortgage decree as against the said property and as the suit has been transferred to this Tribunal and the Tribunal having excessive territorial jurisdiction for that property also, this amendment petition is now filed to include that property in the Original Application (OA) as set out in the amendment petition.3. The appellant defendant filed counter that the Tribunal has not be...

S. Kumar and anr. Vs. Indian Bank

Court: DRAT Madras

1. The respondent Bank filed suit before the High Court and then transferred to City Civil Court, Chennai, in OS No. 10289/96 against the appellants/defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6.90,837.32 p together with interest and costs and the defendants were set ex pane and the suit was decreed with costs as prayed for, on 8.10. 1 996 by the City Civil Court. Chennai. The petitioners did not file any petition for setting aside the ex pane decree. After the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions (RDDB&FI) Act (the Act) came into force, as the amount due from the defendants was more than Rs. 10 lakhs, the Bank filed OA before DRT, Chennai, for issue of Recovery Certificate. The Tribunal issued Recovery Certificate for a sum of Rs. 16,33,433/- together with future interest by order dated 7.12.2000 stating that no notice is required to be issued to the defendants under Section 31 (A). The defendants filed the IA to re-open the OA staling that the summons were recei...

S. Ravi and anr. Vs. Indian Bank

Court: DRAT Madras

Reported in: III(2003)BC112

1. The respondent Bank filed suit before the Hon'ble High Court, Madras, in C.S. No. 864/1993 against the appellants defendants (MA-89/2001) for recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,02,710/- together with interest and costs and the defendants were set ex parte and the suit was decreed with costs as prayed for, on 30.11.1993 by the High Court.The petitioners did not file any petition in the High Court for setting aside the ex parte decree. After the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions (RDDB&FI) Act (the Act) came into force, as the amount due from the defendants was more than Rs. 10 lakhs, the Bank filed OA for issue of Recovery Certificate before DRT, Chennai. The Tribunal issued Recovery Certificate for a sum of Rs. 33,43,051,03p by Order dated 7.12.2000 stating that no notice is required to be issued to the defendants under Section 31 (A). The defendants filed the IA to re-open the OA stating that the summons were received to appear before the Tribunal on 22.12.2000 ...

Indian Bank Vs. T. Kulasekaran

Court: DRAT Madras

Reported in: II(2003)BC67

1. The appellant Bank filed the application before the DRT for recovery of Rs. 11,82,712 against the defendant. The suit was posted in the Special Drive conducted by DRT as suggested by the applicant Bank as it was a fit case for compromise. The learned Presiding Officer, DRT, has stated in his order that in the Special Drive the defendant agreed to pay Rs. 11 lakhs as full and final settlement but the Bank was not agreeable and the Bank wanted Rs. 13.60 lakhs. The Presiding Officer, DRT, found that the difference between the claim of the Bank and the defendant was Rs. 2.60 lakhs and he suggested to compromise the matter if the defendant agrees to pay Rs. 12 lakhs. The Presiding Officer, DRT has stated that the defendant agreed and paid this amount of Rs. 12 lakhs and the balance amount towards the claim of the Bankis only Rs. 1.60 lakhs. The Presiding Officer, DRT invoking Section 19(20) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions (RDDB&F) Amended Act 1/2001,...

Syndicate Bank Vs. G.R. Enterprises and ors.

Court: DRAT Madras

Reported in: II(2003)BC63

1. This appeal is directed as against the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Bangalore, in OA-1279/99. The DRT, Bangalore, has passed the order allowing the application in part declaring defendants 1 to 3 liable to pay the decree amount jointly and severally to the appellant applicant-Bank with costs and interests stipulated in the order and dismissing the application as against the defendant.Aggrieved against the order of the DRT on the dismissal of the application as against the 4th defendant, the appellant-Bank has come forward with this appeal.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Bank submitted that even the 4th defendant has created security and in respect of this loan the 4th defendant also must be held liable along with the other defendants for payment of the decree amount and the order passed by the DRT dismissing the application as against the 4th defendant is not sustainable. He relies upon the letter written by the 4th defendant to the appellant-B...

G.V. Films Vs. Unit Trust of India and anr.

Court: DRAT Madras

1. 1. The snort point that arises in this appeal is whether defendant No. 2 is entitled to cross-examine DW 1 before the DRT. The Tribunal by its order dated 21.11.2001 has passed order holding that D-2 is entitled to cross-examine DW 1. As against that order the appeal is filed.2. Counsel appearing for the appellant-1st defendant submitted that the plaintiff has sought the relief against the defendants and the plaintiff has categorically stated in the plaint that inadvertently the Bank has paid the amount to the 1st defendant and there is a specific case of the plaintiff that if the Bank has inadvertently paid the money to the 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant should not be allowed to cross-examine the 1st defendant.3. The matter involved in this case is with regard to the payment of the dividend amount on the UTI Certificate. The 1st defendant transferred the UTI's Certificate to the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant contends that the dividend for the year 1991 -92 was to be paid to t...

Syndicate Bank Vs. India Machinery Corporation and

Court: DRAT Madras

Reported in: II(2003)BC79

1. The appellant Bank filed the application for recovery of Rs. 10,54,443.40 p. The respondent defendants 1 and 2 remained absent and they were set ex parte. The 3rd defendant filed a statement contending that he is not liable and he is not a proper and necessary party and in respect of him no liability has arisen during the course of the business activity and he is not liable for the suit claim.2. The 3rd defendant is the Manager of the Bank and he was in charge of the day-to-day administration of the Bank. The 2nd defendant, a close associate of the 3rd defendant, pressurized the 3rd defendant to commit certain irregularities and the 3rd defendant committed certain fraud in collusion with the customers of the applicant Bank and on 5.6.1992, LD 265/92 for Rs. 5.60 lakhs was arranged against the deposit of VCC Nos.3528 and 3529 for Rs. 5.00 lakhs each standing in the name of Smt.Venkatamma and Mr. Chikke Gowda and these deposits were to mature on 18.5.1993 and the proceeds of LD 265/9...

Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. Vs. V.T.C. Builders and anr.

Court: DRAT Madras

Reported in: I(2003)BC43

1. The appellant-applicant Bank filed the Suit for Recovery of Rs. 15,71,519/-. The respondent-defendants sought relief before the DRT, Chennai, only with regard to the rate of interest i.e. at simple interest. The appellant-applicant Bank did not agree for that and insisted on contractual rate of interest. The defendants paid a sum of Rs. 15,42,945/- and they agreed to pay the entire balance amount with 6% simple interest from the date of plaint till 29.11.1999 and also the Court fee and Advocate fee. The total interest amount, adding the Court fee and Advocate fee comes to Rs. 5,23,488/- and the balance amount of the suit claim was Rs. 28,574/-. The learned Presiding Officer found that the balance payable comes to Rs. 5,52,062/- after giving credit to the amount already paid by the defendants. The defendants paid the entire balance amount of Rs. 5,52,0627- by way of Cheque. Since the entire amount was paid, the learned Presiding Officer ordered on 30.11.1999 to pay 6% simple interes...

Ramesh Chand and ors. Vs. Global Trust Bank and ors.

Court: DRAT Madras

Reported in: II(2003)BC6

1. The appeal is directed as against the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in IA-212/2001 in OA-1481/1998 dated 25.6.2001. The respondent Bank filed this IA seeking permission to sell the property situated at 307, P.H. Road, by private sale and deposit the sale proceeds to the account of the Bank. The 2nd defendant has no objection. The 5th defendant has also given consent subject to the condition mentioned in their compromise letter dated 21.6.2001, The learned Presiding Officer allowed the IA granting permission of the interim sale of the property at 307, PH Road, which are mortgaged with the Bank over which defendant No. 5 is also having a charge. The learned Presiding Officer has further ordered that the sale shall be conducted by inviting tenders and the sale proceeds shall be appropriated by the Bank only after the sale is confirmed by the Court and subject to the appropriate conditions which may be imposed by the Court in the light of the Supre...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Canara Bank and ors.

Court: DRAT Madras

Reported in: I(2003)BC50

1. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Chennai, in TA-101/1997 against the appellant (defendant No. 3 in the OA) for recovery of a sum of Rs. 90,055.74p with 12% simple interest from the date of plaint till the date of realisaction, the appellant has preferred this appeal.2. The appellant in this appeal contends that the Tribunal erred in holding that the appellant is not entitled to hold back the amount due under the bills and the Tribunal erred in holding that a sum of Rs. 90,055.74 p, was due and payable by the appellant to the 1st respondent Canara Bank with simple interest at the rate of 12% and the Tribunal also erred in observing that the 1st respondent Bank restricted its claim upto four payments i.e. dated 21.7.1987 for Rs. 1,037.74p, bill dated 17.9.1987 for Rs.1,838/-, bill dated 17.10.1987 for Rs. 11,902/- and bill dated 19.10.1987 for Rs. 75,278/-, and the appellant has also sustained loss because the 2nd respondent d...