Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : II(2003)BC119
1. The 5th defendant in the Original Application (OA) is the appellant in this appeal. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is the guarantor and the appellant did not sign the subsequent guarantees for the enhanced limits in the year 1994 and that document is a forged document. He further submitted that, that document was also sent to the expert and the expert has given opinion that the questioned signatures were not signed by the appellant. From the reasoning sheet of the expert it is seen that S1 to S41 did not write the signatures marked Q1 to Q5, the disputed signatures. The reasoning given is that the standard signatures have been freely written and agree in the handwriting characteristics and the questioned signatures have been imitated, exhibit inherent signs of forgery like hesitation, slow drawn movement, defective-like quality and they differ significantly from the standard in the handwriting characteristics. Relying upon this expert opinion, the Counsel for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : II(2003)BC82
1. Both Counsels present. Heard Counsels for both sides. Order was passed by this Tribunal under Section 21 of the Act on 5.7.2002 directing the appellant to deposit Rs. 1 crore within six weeks from 5.7.2002 failing which the appeal shall not be entertained and shall be rejected. As against that order the appellant preferred appeal before the High Court of Kerala in O.P. No. 22789/2002(K) and the High Court of Kerala passed order on 12.9.2002 stating that inasmuch as the appellate Tribunal has not adverted to the contentions of the petitioners that more than the decree amount can be realised only through the account of the Bank and is lying in credit of the petitioners which the Bank alone can collect and the Bank can adjust those amounts to the decree debt immediately on receipt of the same that should have been considered and orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal, and the High Court of Kerala has directed this Appellate Tribunal to reconsider that application and pass appropriate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : III(2003)BC12
1. Final order was passed in the Original Application (OA) on 31.3.1999. The appellant is defendant No. 5 in the OA. The appellant filed petition before DRT-II, Chennai, to condone the delay of 249 days in setting aside the ex parte decree dated 31.3.1999 and that was dismissed by the Tribunal. The appeals are preferred against that order as passed dismissing the IAs (IA-875/02 to condone the delay of 249 days in filing petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 31.3.1999, IA 876/02 to stay the auction under DRC-112/2001 and MA-2/2002 to set aside the ex parte final order dated 31.3.1999).2. Counsel for the appellant submits that D-5 never mortgaged her property to the respondent Bank and she is not at all concerned with the borrowing and she never gave her title deeds and no notice was also served on her and she came to know about the ex parte decree only in the year 2001 when she received the attachment order on 27.12.2001 and then she filed petition to set aside the ex parte d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : III(2003)BC6
1. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Bangalore, in allowing the IA permitting the 2nd defendant with regard to enhancement of counter claim, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant Bank.2. The Counsel for the appellant Bank submits that original counter claim was filed for Rs. 5,000/- and now it has been enhanced to Rs. 5,83,711.81 p. and after filing the counter claim originally, all of a sudden it cannot be raised and the order passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT, permitting the 2nd defendant for enhancing the counter claim is not sustainable.3. The Counsel for the respondents submits that even in the original counter claim, the counter claim was nominally arrived at for the value of Rs. 5,000/- and Court fee was paid and even in para (7) of the counter claim it has been specifically stated that the values of the finished goods, raw materials and semi-finished goods are taken into account and the finished goods and 20% of the value of the sem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : III(2003)BC8
1. Counsel for the appellants submits that the jurisdiction for this case lies within the Bombay DRT and not the Bangalore DRT, since the defendants are residents of Bombay and they have availed the loan at Bombay and the Bangalore DRT has no jurisdiction to entertain this case and since jurisdiction of the Court is under dispute the appellant is not liable to pay any amount and the appellant is entitled for waiver under Section 21 of the Act. He further submits that the appellant also gave shares as security to the Bank given absolute right to the Bank to sell the shares in case there is any default but the Bank do not sell the shares and till now the Bank is keeping the shares and by not selling to shares in time the appellants have also sustained loss and even on this ground the appellants are entitled for waiver under Section 21 of the Act. The third point argued to the Counsel for the appellants is that the waiving of interest to 19% per annum arbitrary and the appellants are lia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : II(2003)BC106
1. The Bank filed petition for attachment of FCNR deposit No. 036555 standing in the names of Smt. Maya Patchava the 4th respondent and another person, lying with the petitioner Bank to the extent to half share. The Presiding Officer, DRT, Hyderabad, passed order of attachment on 26.11.2001 and the order reads as follows: "In view of the quantum of the claim, the stage of the matter and the facts and the circumstances of the case, it is just and proper to attach the amount to the extent of half share in FCNR deposit No. 036555 lying in the name of the 4th respondent and another with the petitioner Bank until further orders." 2. This matter was heard on merit and the Presiding Officer, DRT, passed order on 12.8.2002 and the petition was dismissed. It is also observed in that order that the 4th respondent is at liberty to either continue the FCNR deposit or to withdraw the same. Aggrieved against that order the Bank has preferred this appeal.3. Counsel for the respondents submitted that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : II(2003)BC42
1. The appellant 3rd defendant filed IA-583/2001 before the DRT, Ernakulam, to reopen the case and allow the petitioner to cross-examine the applicant Bank witness and that was dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 23.8.2001. Challenging that Order, Appeal MA-76/2002 is filed.2. Order was passed in the original application (OA) on 24.4.2001.After passing of the final Order, IA-583/01 was filed on 5.6.2001 before the PO, DRT, for reopening the case for cross-examining the applicant Bank witness. The appellant has filed the petition to reopen the case after final order was passed. Before the final order is passed, a party can seek relief of reopening the case and seeking for further cross-examination. After final order is passed the remedy open to the appellant is only to prefer appeal as against the final order and he is not entitled to seek the relief of reopening the case and cross-examining the Bank witness. For the relief sought for in IA-583/01 after disposal of the OA and afte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : II(2003)BC103
1. The appellants defendants were set ex parte before the Tribunal on 19.1.1999 and the ex parte decree was passed on 21.11.2000 and final order was passed on that day. To set aside the ex parte decree the defendants filed IA-34/2001 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal passed conditional order on 6.11.2002 directing the defendants to deposit Rs. 1.15 crores. Aggrieved against that order the appellants have preferred this appeal.2. Counsel for the appellants submits that no notice was served on the defendants and reference was pending before the BIFR and while the matter was pending before the BIFR the Presiding Officer, DRT-I, passed the ex parte decree and the conditional order imposed is also not sustainable. Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that there was proper service of summons and Counsel also appeared for the 1st appellant by filing Vakalat and afterwards the 1st appellant was also set ex parte and all the defendants were set ex parte and so it cannot be stated that th...
Tag this Judgment!