Drat Madras Court May 2002 Judgments

Punjab National Bank Vs. Kaveri Food Products (India) Pvt.

Court: DRAT Madras

Reported in: II(2003)BC44

1. The appellant Bank has filed this appeal to set aside the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore, on 31.10.2000. The only contention raised in the appeal is with regard to the rate of interest. The Presiding Officer, DRT, has passed order directing issue of Recovery Certificate as prayed in the plaint and the claim or interest by the applicant Bank is regulated as per the loan document with quarterly rests and directed the Bank to file a Statement on these lines within two weeks from the date of order and thereafter to issue Recovery Certificate. The Bank is much aggrieved as against the order passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT, in respect of the interest awarded.2. Counsel for the appellant Bank submitted that as per the documents hypothecation agreement, packing credit facility, term loan, etc., interest to be charged is with monthly rests upto 14.3.1976 and thereafter interest to be charged at quarterly rests, but the Presiding Officer, DRT, ...

N. Krishnadoss and ors. Vs. Bank of Madura Ltd.

Court: DRAT Madras

Reported in: III(2003)BC132

1. The respondent applicant Bank filed IA-944/1999 in OA-79/1997 seeking for interim Recovery Certificate in terms of the admission of amount by the defendants 1 to 4 in their reply statement. The Presiding Officer, DRT-1, found that in the reply statement filed by the defendants 1 to 4, they have agreed and admitted to pay Rs. 7.72 lakhs.So to the extent of the admitted liability the PO, DRT, has passed the Order. It is seen from the Order that during the pendency of the application the defendants filed another application in IA-1358/2001 for re-opening the IA-944/99 and also filed other IAs with regard to the maintainability of the OA and the PO, DRT, passed order as follows: "In order to render justice and to provide a fair opportunity to defendants, a conditional order is passed in respect of IA-135 8/01 as well as IA No. 944/99 that defendants shall deposit Rs. 7.72 lakhs in no lien account of the Bank subject to the final disposal of the IA-944/99, 1358/2001 and IA-1187 of 1192/...

Saraf Trading Corporation and Vs. State Bank of India

Court: DRAT Madras

Reported in: I(2003)BC71

1. The appeal is directed as against the order passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Ernakulam, in IA-137/2000. IA-137/2000 was filed by the defendants for deciding on the preliminary issues. The preliminary issues raised are that the applicant Bank namely, the State Bank of India has no locus standi to file the suit and the amount involved does not relate to debt and the suit is also barred by limitation. The Presiding Officer, DRT, passed the order dismissing the IA.2. Counsel for the appellants submitted that three preliminary objections have been raised by the appellant and on these preliminary objections the suit itself is not maintainable but the Presiding Officer, DRT, has dismissed that petition and the suit itself has to be dismissed and the order passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT, is liable to be set aside. With regard to the first objection that the applicant Bank namely, the SBI has no locus standi to file the suit, Counsel for the appellants submits that the Reserve Ba...

S. Mangayarkarasi Vs. the I.C.i.C.i. Bank Ltd.

Court: DRAT Madras

1. The respondent applicant Bank filed IA-2/2002 seeking to restrain the defendants from selling, transferring, disposing of, creating third party right or in any manner dealing with the shares and immovable properties as have come to their shares and allotment in pursuance of Conciliation order dated 29.9.2001 issued in CMP No. 31/2001 and the Tribunal allowed the same and passed an order of injunction on 28.2.2002. The appeal is directed to set aside that order.2. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the property involved in the IA for which interim injunction was sought for are not the mortgaged properties to the Bank and those properties are the Trust properties, the appellant is only a trustee and the beneficiaries are different persons and the appellant has no manner or right over these properties and as it is a Trust property the injunction granted in respect of these properties are to be vacated and the order passed by the PO. DRT, is liable to be set aside.3. The appellan...

Indian Bank Vs. K. Thiagarajan

Court: DRAT Madras

Reported in: II(2003)BC21

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant Bank aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, (DRT), Chennai on 29.2.2000.2. The Counsel for the appellant Bank submits that the Bank agreed for Rs. 29.49 lakhs for one time settlement and the Bank has never agreed for lesser amount but the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, (DRT), Chennai has passed order for lesser amount for Rs. 26.50 lakhs as full and final settlement and so the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Chennai, has to be set aside.3. The Counsel for the respondent submits that this matter was not heard on merit and it was decided under a special drive sitting held on 21.8.1999, only after the negotiation with the parties, the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Chennai arrived at such conclusion and directed the defendant to pay a lumpsum of Rs. 26.50 lakhs as full and final settlement to the Bank and this settlement was arrived at in the speci...

Uco Bank Vs. S.Y. Padmanabhan

Court: DRAT Madras

Reported in: II(2003)BC70

1. The appeal is directed as against the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam, in allowing the application filed by the 3rd party applicant for impleading him as additional party in the Original Application (OA). The party impleaded is a worker in the Premier Cable Company Ltd., in liquidation. The Bank resisted the petition. The petition was allowed by the Presiding Officer, DRT, and the proposed party was added as defendant No. 11. Aggrieved against that order the Bank has come forward with this appeal.2. Counsel for the appellant Bank submitted that the party impleaded as D-11 is a worker and he cannot be impleaded as a party in the petition and the wages to the worker also can be worked out and the amount can be set apart and paid to the workers during recovery proceedings and now there is no necessity to implead the worker as a party in the OA which is purely a proceeding between the lender Bank and the borrower and the worker is not a necessar...

A.V. Exhibitors and ors. Vs. Corporation Bank

Court: DRAT Madras

Reported in: I(2003)BC92

1. The respondent Bank as applicant filed the suit against the appellants for recovery of Rs. 13,79,623.94 p. The appellants also deposited the title deeds and created equitable mortgage and the appellants also hypothecated the goods and movables specified in Schedule C. The appellants as defendants filed the written statement contending that there is no agreement for payment of any interest and the Bank has claimed unauthorized charges by way of penal interest, service charges, etc, and the Bank took the signatures of the appellants in several documents without explaining the nature of the documents. The Original Application (OA) was heard by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Bangalore, and it was allowed holding the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the amount decreed and also for sale of the mortgaged property in case of non-setting the claim of the Bank within three months. Aggrieved against the order the appellants have preferred this appeal.2. In this appeal (AT-31/2000) ...

Indian Overseas Bank Vs. N. Devarajan and ors.

Court: DRAT Madras

1. The appeal is directed by the appellant Bank as against the order passed in IAs-560/1999 to review the order passed in IA-156 and 157/1999 in OA-641/1999.2. The Bank filed suit against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/-and odd. During the pendency of the original application the defendants 6 and 7 filed IAs-156 and 157/1999 for release of their mortgaged properties i.e. 'C' and 'D' Schedule properties.4. The learned Presiding Officer (PO), Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Chennai, passed the order in IAs-156 and 157/1999 directing to release 'C' and 'D' schedule properties in favour of defendants 6 and 7 since the defendants 6 and 7 have paid part of the loan amount of Rs. 19,50,000/-.5. The learned PO, DRT, Chennai has also observed that the remaining properties i.e. 'B' and 'E' Schedule properties remain with the Bank as security for the due repayment of balance amount and the assurance has also been given by the defendants that they would settle the debt.6. Th...