Drat Madras Court June 2002 Judgments

Vijaya Bank Vs. Murudeshwar Foods and Exports

Court: DRAT Madras

1. The plaintiff Bank filed the original application (OA) for recovery of Rs. 7.45,24.159/-against the defendants. During the pendency of that OA, the 2nd defendant filed IA-14 praying the Tribunal to delete his name from the OA as he is not a necessary party and to dismiss that OA against him stating that the 2nd defendant is not personally liable and the alleged personal guarantee executed is not valid and enforceable and at his request the applicant Bank has relieved him of his personal guarantee obligation by virtue of letters dated 29.7.1995 and 20.11.1995 communications of the Bank expressly relieving him of his personal guarantee and so the 2nd defendant is not liable for the suit claim. The applicant Bank filed objection stating that there was no communication made by the branch or any authority to relieve him of his personal guarantee and the 2nd defendant is also liable to pay that amount. This IA-14 was heard by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Bangalore, and he allowed that IA ...

K. Chandrasekaran and ors. Vs. the South Indian Bank Ltd.

Court: DRAT Madras

1. The appeal is directed as against the Order passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Chennai, in TA-23/1999. The applicant Bank filed a suit against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 13,46,349.10 p with interest on the sum of Rs 12,35,593.45 p in the Sub-Court, Erode. The defendants were set ex pane and preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 15.4.1981. The defendants filed application IA-249/1981 to set aside the preliminary decree and that was dismissed by the Sub-Court. The defendants preferred an appeal before the High Court of Madras in CM A No. 417/1983 and obtained interim stay and that CM A was disposed of by the High Court on 14.12.1991. During the pendency of the CMA in the High Court and while during the stay was in force, the Bank filed an application in the Sub-Court, Erode, to pass final decree and the Sub-Court passed the final decree i" the Suit on 13.2.1984. Thereafter, the defendants filed two applications, IA-1114/91 to amend the preliminary decree in respect ...

Augusthy Joseph and ors. Vs. State Bank of Travancore

Court: DRAT Madras

Reported in: I(2003)BC76

1. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Ernakulam, in OA-336/1999, the appellant has preferred this appeal and while preferring the appeal there is a delay of 438 days. Counsel for the appellant submits that he filed preliminary objection before the DRT, Ernakulam, and order was passed in the preliminary objection and the appellant was waiting for receipt of the order on the preliminary objection and as such the delay has occurred and the delay has to be condoned.2. Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that on the same day when the Presiding Officer, DRT, dismissed the preliminary objection, order in the Original Application (OA) was passed and no separate order was passed on the preliminary objection and the Counsel for the appellant was also present in the Court when the order was passed and there is no justifiable ground for condoning the inordinate delay of 438 days.3. On a perusal of the Order it is seen that the objections filed by the defendant N...

R.G. Mallikarjuniah and anr. Vs. Bank of India

Court: DRAT Madras

1. The respondent Bank filed IA-4 before the Presiding Officer, DRT, Bangalore, to direct the defendants to furnish security and upon their failure, to pass a conditional order of attachment before judgment in respect of property mentioned therein. The Tribunal allowed the petition. The appeal is directed as against the order passed by the PO, DRT.2. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the PO, DRT, has passed the order ordering attachment before judgment of 'D' Schedule property preventing the 3rd defendant from alienating or otherwise dealing with the said property until further orders from the Tribunal and the order passed by the PO, DRT, is not sustainable since the relevant conditions for passing order before judgment have not been complied with by the respondent Bank. He pointed out that the respondent Bank has not set out reasons at all for effecting attachment before judgment of that property and as per Section 19(13) of the Act the Tribunal must be satisfied that if a de...