Drat Madras Court August 2002 Judgments
Medichem Industries Vs. Bank of Baroda
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC29
1. The respondent applicant Bank filed application against the appellant defendants for recovery of Rs. 14,87,962.14 p. with costs, current and future interest. The defendants appellant filed the written statement resisting the claim of the appellant. The matter was heard by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Bangalore, and he allowed the application and ordered for issue of Recovery Certificate as prayed for in the application. Aggrieved against that order the appellant has preferred this appeal. The main objection raised by the appellant is that the Bank has seized the goods and machineries of the appellant and is keeping it under its custody without selling it and without adjusting the sale proceeds of the seized goods the present suit is not maintainable. Counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff Bank cannot recover the amount by keeping the pledged goods in its custody without selling it and appropriating it towards the suit claim. He further submitted that the suit is also b...
Tag this Judgment!Pratap Shah Vs. Indian Overseas Bank
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Aug-13-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC56
1. The appeal is directed as against the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-2 (DRT), Chennai in IA-38/2002 in TA-343/2001 for sending the document Power of Attorney Ex. A-21 to the Forensic Science Department of Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, for examination as to the age of the manuscript portion and the signatures contained in that document and objection was raised by the respondent Bank and the Presiding Officer, DRT, Chennai dismissed that petition holding that only to protract the proceedings the petition has been filed.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the typed portions in the Power of Attorney filed appears to be new and it would not have been of the year 1975 when the Power of Attorney was executed and the typed portion came into existence only at the later point of time and the Power of Attorney was also not notarized and the Power of Attorney is a fabricated one and this document has to be sent to the Go...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of Patiala Vs. B. Kashinath and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Aug-12-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC1
1. The applicant Bank filed No. OA-636/1996 before Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). Bangalore, for recovery of Rs. 2,91,86,560.84 p. with cost, current and future interest. The defendants I to 3 and 8 remained absent and they were set ex parte. The 6th defendant during the pendency of the proceedings died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The defendants 4, 5 and 9 were represented by Counsel and filed their reply statement. The 5th defendant was the Manager of the plaintiff Bank. The matter was heard by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Bangalore and he passed order for issue of recovery certificate to recover from the defendants 1 to 3 and 9 and from the assets of late Sh. Rudrappa which are in the hands of defendants 6 to 8 for Rs. 1,65,47,807.82 p. with post current and future interest at 19.25 per cent annum compounded quarterly from the date of suit till the date of recovery and also another recovery certificate for Rs. 23,98,089/- wi...
Tag this Judgment!N.B. Prakash (Late) Vs. Canara Bank
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Aug-06-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC62
1. The 5 defendant filed IA-21 putting forth his counter-claim and contended that appellant must be permitted to file his counter-claim.The applicant-Bank filed objections stating that the counter-claim is not maintainable and it was filed after a lapse more than five years from the date of filing the written statement and evidence was also recorded and 4th defendant has given the evidence on behalf of all the defendants and the petition is filed only to drag on the proceedings.2. The application was heard by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Bangalore and he dismissed the petition holding that the counter-claim is barred by time. Aggrieved against that order the appellant has come forward with this appeal.3. The Counsel for the appellant submitted that Section 19(8) of the Act permits for filing of counter-claim and accordingly the appellant has filed counter-claim by paying necessary Court fee and even though the written statement was filed in the 1996, t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›