Drat Madras Court April 2002 Judgments

S. Surendran Vs. the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.

Court: DRAT Madras

1. The Catholic Syrian Bank, respondent in this appeal filed an application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions (RDDB & FI) Act, 1993, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 16,94,648/- with interest at the rate of 23.25 per cent. The defendant filed reply statement denying the suit claim. The matter was heard by the learned Presiding Officer (PO), Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Ernakulam and the application was allowed directing to pay by the appellant-defendant a sum of Rs. 17,31,398/- with future interest at the rate of 21.25 per cent per annum simple interest, less amount if any paid, from the date of Original Application till realisation and also charge over the schedule properties in the application. Aggrieved against that order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Ernakulam, on the award of rate of interest, the appellant-defendant has come forward with this appeal.2. In this appeal the appellant contends that the award of intere...

Central Bank of India Vs. Kirlampudi Sugar Mills and ors.

Court: DRAT Madras

Reported in: III(2003)BC33

1. The third party petitioners (Kirlampudi Sugar Mills Staff & Workers Union) filed IAs 245 and 246/2001 before Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Hyderabad to implead them as defendant No. 4 in the Original Application (OA) No. 267/2000 and direction that the sale proceeds of the properties mentioned in 'C Schedule properties were not to be appropriated towards the dues of the applicant Bank in that OA.2. The DRT, Hyderabad, dismissed those IAs by its order dated 27.9.2001 but the Tribunal directed that an amount of Rs. 13,20,034/- awarded by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Eluru, from out of the sale proceeds to be deposited in a fixed deposit to the credit of the OA to enable the third party petitioners to work out their remedies before Recovery Officer after the disposal of the OA and the Writ Petition No.2782/2001.3. These appeals are directed by the appellant Bank as against the direction issued by the learned Presiding Officer, with regard to set aside the direction issue...

Anil M. Deshpande and anr. Vs. State Bank of Mysore

Court: DRAT Madras

1. The appeal is directed as against the order dated 25.7.1997 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Bangalore, in OA-527/1995. The appellants are defendants 4 and 5 in the Original Application. The PC), DRT, has passed the order allowing the application directing all the defendants jointly and severally to pay the decree amount with interest as directed in the order and further ordered that the FCNR deposits shown in Schedule 'C' are collateral security to the credit facility given to the 1st defendant and the applicant Bank is entitled to appropriate the proceeds of the sale granting three months' lime to settle the claim of the Bank failing which for sale of the 'A' Schedule properly and for balance if any to proceed personally against the defendants.2. The appellants are aggrieved against the order of the PC), DRT, direct ing the appellants to pay the decree amount and also for the declaratory order passed that the FCNR deposits shown in 'C' Schedule are ...

S. Rathnavel Vs. Bank of Madura Ltd.

Court: DRAT Madras

Reported in: III(2003)BC24

1. The applicant Bank filed IA-893/99 before the Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chennai, for sale of house, ground after defraying the expenses of sale towards the petitioner Bank's claim or direct the 4th respondent in IA to take over the liability of the defendants 1 to 3 in respect of claim made by the applicant Bank and pay the entire amount as claimed in the Original Application. The Tribunal by its order dated 18.3.2002 allowed the IA with certain conditions. The Tribunal passed order stating the defendant is at liberty to deposit the sale consideration amount on or before 28.3.2002 failing which the 3rd party purchaser is at liberty to negotiate with the Bank to purchase the said property from the Bank and may purchase the property for the sale consideration agreed by the Bank and the amount be paid by 31.3.2002.2. The Presiding Officer, DRT-I, has also observed in the order that in case the above said sale is not materialized, 3rd party purchasers Jayanthilal G. Surana and Anita Ja...

U. Mahesh Kumar Vs. Bank of India

Court: DRAT Madras

Reported in: II(2003)BC91

1. Aggrieved against the Order passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Hyderabad, directing the defendants to deposit Rs. 50,000 per month into the Tribunal towards the credit of OA-330/2000 by 10th of every month failing which the relief sought by the petitioner to sell the hypothecated animals and other movables mentioned in the Schedule report and depositing the proceedings before the Tribunal through the Commissioner would stand ordered, the appellant has come forward with this appeal.2. Counsel for the appellant at the outset submitted that the animals and other movables mentioned in the Schedule report are not in the hypothecated goods and so the Order passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT, ordering sale of the hypothecated goods is not sustainable and so the conditional order passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT is liable to be set aside.3. On the other hand, Counsel for the respondent-Bank submitted that the Bank submitted petition only for sale of the h...

Car Beuti and anr. Vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd.

Court: DRAT Madras

1. Aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore, in IA-15/2001, in OA-681/1995 the appellants have come forward with this Appeal.2. The appellants filed IA-15/2001 for permitting the Tribunal to raise counter-claim of Rs. 65,00,000/- with interest against the Applicant Bank. The Tribunal rejected the Application for non-payment of Court fee by its order dated 31.8.2001.3. The Counsel for the appellants submits that the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 do not provide for any payment of Court fee on counter-claim and the appellants are not liable to pay Court fee on the counter-claim and the counter-claim has to be entertained.4. The Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that for making counter-claim, the appellants have to pay Court fee since the appellants have raised counter-claim for about Rs. 65,00,000/- (Rupees sixtyfive lakhs) with interest from the applicant Bank. The Bank has filed suit for recovery of ...