Drat Madras Court February 2003 Judgments
B. Venkat Rao Vs. Andhra Bank and anr.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC120
1. The DRT, Hyderabad, decreed the O.A. 460/1999. The appellant filed M. A. 54/2002 to set aside the ex parte order and that was dismissed by the Tribunal. As against that order the appeal has been preferred.2. Counsel for the appellant submits that no summons was served on the appellant in the OA and the PO, DRT, has passed order ex parte and natural justice has been denied to, the appellant and so the ex parte order has to be set aside. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that he came to know about the ex parte order only after seeing the publication issued by the Recovery Officer in the DRT, Hyderabad, for auction sale and immediately he filed the petition to set aside the ex parte order and without his knowledge and notice the ex parte order was passed. Counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that there was proper service of summons and the appellant did not appear before the Court and the appellant was set ex parte and the order passed by the PO, DRT, dismissing the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Raghavendra theatre Vs. Bank of India
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Feb-27-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC47
1. The appellant filed appeal AOR-1/ 2002 on the file of DRT, Bangalore to pass order to the effect that the 1st respondent Bank is not entitled to recover the amount from the appellants in terms of the decree passed by the DRT in OA-878/1995 dated 10.6.1997 and direct the 1st respondent Bank to accept a sum of Rs. 33,75,000/- in all as full and final settlement of their dues as per the compromise dated 3.2.2001 and withdraw the Recovery Certificate DRC No. 360/1997, dated 26.10.1997 and also withdraw the Recovery Certificate No. 182/2001, dated 26.10.1997. The Tribunal heard the matter and dismissed that petition. Aggrieved against that order the appellant has preferred this appeal. The OA was disposed of and final order was passed in the OA on 10.6.1997.2. Counsel for the appellant submitted that subsequent to the passing of the final order the matter was compromised between the Bank and the appellant and One Time Settlement (OTS) was arrived at and the matter was compromised for a ...
Tag this Judgment!Kothari Industrial Corporation Vs. Hdfc Bank Ltd.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC19
1. The PO, DRT-I, Chennai, passed Order on 12.7.2002 directing the defendants to pay the admitted loan liability of Rs. 2,35,00,000/- and legal fees of Rs. 1,14,873.33 P as stated in Paras 3 and 4 of the Reply Statement, by four weeks failing which an Interim Recovery Certificate will be issued. That Order is being challenged now in this appeal. It appears from the records that subsequently since the defendants did not pay the amount as directed by the Tribunal, Interim Recovery Certificate was issued on 9.12.2002.2. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the PO, DRT-I, has observed that the defendants have admitted primary liability to the extent of Rs. 2.35 crores as the admitted liability, but One Time Settlement (OTS) was arrived at between the appellants and the Bank and the matter was settled for Rs. 2.35 crores along with the legal fee of Rs. 1,14,873/- and as the matter was settled for OTS for the above said amount the order passed by the PO, DRT-I, stating the sum of Rs. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Bank Vs. Vetrivel and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Feb-10-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC17
1. The Bank filed OA-252/1997 before the DRT for realisation or the amount due to it by the defendants. The matter was disposed of by the Tribunal and decree was passed by the PO, DRT, Chennai, and the PO, DRT, ordered to issue a Recovery Certificate on the revised Statement of Account with simple interest at 18% per annum throughout i.e. from the date of transaction till the date of filing of the Suit and simple interest at 8% p.a. on the outstanding as per the revised Statement of account as observed in para 9 of the Order, from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realisation with proportionate costs.Aggrieved against the Order passed by the PO, DRT, on the question or award of interest, the appellant Bank has preferred this appeal.2. Counsel for the appellant Bank submitted that two loans were taken by the respondents agreeing to pay interest at the rate or 18% p.a.with quarterly rests in respect of the 1st loan and 17,5% p.a. with quarterly rests in respect of the 2nd ...
Tag this Judgment!St. George Cashew Traders and ors. Vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Feb-07-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC118
1. Original Application (OA) was filed before the PO, DRT, Ernakulam, and the PO, DRT, passed order on 11.1.2000 ordering issue of Recovery Certificate as against defendants 1 to 10 and their assets and if it is not sufficient and then against D1 to D10. That order was subsequently modified by Order dated 6.7.2000 directing defendants 1 to 8, 10 and 13 to 18 to pay the decree amount as mentioned in the original order since D9 died and his LRs have been added subsequently. The appellants have filed appeal as against that order contending that D11 and D12 who are the insurers of the 1st defendant are liable to pay the amount since the stock and building have been insured with them for Rs. 15 lakhs and for Rs. 2,75,000/- and so D11 and D12 are also liable for the suit claim and they may be directed ot pay the amount covered under the Insurance Policy.2. Counsel for the appellants submitted that since the Insurance Companies are also liable to pay the amount since the stock and building h...
Tag this Judgment!Gangavathi Sugars Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Feb-04-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC112
1. The Bank filed IA-3/2002 before the DRT, Bangalore, for directing the 1st defendant to deposit 50% of the sale proceeds of the sugar and molasses to the applicant. The Tribunal by its order dated 16.5.2002 allowed the application by directing the appellant to deposit 30% of the sale proceeds to the applicant Bank.2. Counsel for the appellant submits that even 30% of the sale proceeds cannot be deposited to the Bank since the appellant has to incur statutory liability by paying taxes, wages to workers and payment to cane growers and even the sale proceeds would not be sufficient to meet those expenses and so the order passed by the PO, DRT, has to be set aside. He further submitted that the respondent Bank filed the petition for deposit of 50% of the sale proceeds of the sugar under Section 19(12) of the RDDB & FI Act and the petition itself is not maintainable under that section. Section 19(12) reads as follows: "The Tribunal may make an interim order (whether by way of injunct...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›