Drat Madras Court March 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
industrial Development Bank of Vs. Empee Sugars and Chemicals Ltd.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Mar-28-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC99
1. The Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) filed IA-1129/2000 before DRT, Chennai, to pass garnishee Order directing the garnishee TASMAC not to pay the amount to Empee Distilleries Ltd. Empee Distilleries is the guarantor for the borrower M/s. Empee Sugar and Chemicals Ltd. For the outstanding due, the IDBI filed this IA for garnishee Order Exparte Order was originally passed by the DRT, Chennai, directing the garnishee TASMAC not to pay the amount to Empee Distilleries. The defendant Empee Distilleries filed IA-1229/2000 to vacate the garnishee Order. The PO, DRT passed a modified Order on 30.5.2000 directing the Empee Distilleries to pay Rs. 10 lakhs every month to the Bank. Appeal was preferred by the IDBI as against that Order, in MA-54/2000 and this Appellate Tribunal disposed of that appeal on 6.10.2000 directing to PO, DRT, to pass a well considered Order. Then, IAs 1 and 2/2000 in MA-54/ 2000 were filed by the Empee Distilleries to modify DRAT's Order dated 6.10.2000....
Syndicate Bank Vs. Sundari Sugars Limited and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Mar-26-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC10
1. The appellant Bank filed IA-1 before the Tribunal for attachment of 'A', 'B1 and 'C' schedule properties. The DRT allowed the same and permitted the Bank to sell sugar, etc., in exercise of Bank's rights under hypothecation agreement. The Bank then filed IA-2 for police protection for implementing the order passed in IA-1 and that was also allowed. The Tribunal directed that the sale proceeds of the sugar stock shall be kept in separate account and the amount of sale proceeds shall be adjusted towards loan liability after deciding the objection of workers, etc. Then the Bank filed IA-3 for deletion of that portion of the order passed in IA-2 "directing, to keep the sale proceeds in a separate account". That petition was dismissed by the Tribunal.Aggrieved against that order, the Bank has preferred this appeal.2. While passing the order, Presiding Officer, DRT, Bangalore has observed that "the direction assailed cannot be characterized as an error and on the other hand it is quite v...
Krupanidhi Educational Vs. Bank of Baroda and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Mar-25-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC58
1. The Bank filed Original Application (OA) against the defendants and the OA was allowed and recovery certificate was also issued. The appellant is not party to the OA. The appellant filed IA-1/2001 for withdrawal of recovery certificate contending that an agreement of sale was entered into between this appellant i.e. M/s. Krupanidhi Educational Institution and the borrower the 1st defendant and in pursuance of the sale agreement, at the request of borrower, the appellant has paid a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs to the respondent Bank and the appellant is prepared to discharge the entire loan amount to the Bank and the title deeds deposited with the Bank may be returned to the appellant. The Presiding Officer, DRT, by order dated 31.1.2002 dismissed that petition holding that the Tribunal will not have jurisdiction to grant relief to the 3rd party who has no privity of contract against the applicant Bank. As against that order the appeal is preferred by the 3rd party Krupanidhi Educational Ins...
Hotel Ornate (Nilgris) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Bank of Travancore
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC13
1. Final order was passed by the DRT on 28.3.2001 allowing the original application (OA) and DRC was also issued. The appellants filed IA-388/2002 praying the Tribunal to set aside the ex parte decree and it was dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 18.10.2002. Aggrieved against that order this appeal is preferred by the appellant who is the 4th defendant in the OA.2. Counsel for the appellant submitted that no relief was sought for as against the 4th defendant in the OA and so the 4th defendant was keeping quiet and he did not contest that matter much, now after coming to know that the 4th defendant's property has been brought to auction, it is necessary for the 4th defendant to contest the case and so the ex parte order passed has to be set aside. Counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that the 4th defendant's property is involved in this case and that has been mortgaged to the Bank and in case of default of payment of the decree amount by the borrowers, the property of the 4t...
P. Swarnalatha Vs. the Federal Bank Ltd.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC28
1. The appellant filed IA-I praying the Tribunal to dismiss the OA 87/2001 as hit by Rule 10 of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993. The Tribunal dismissed that petition. Aggrieved against that order, the appellant has come forward with this appeal.2. The Counsel for appellant submits that different loans have been availed by the defendants and all the loans have been clubbed together by the respondent Bank and the respondent Bank has filed the OA and clubbing all the reliefs in a single suit is not maintainable and so the OA has to be dismissed. "An applicant shall not seek relief or reliefs based on more than a single cause of action in one single application unless the reliefs prayed for are consequential to one another." The defendants 1 to 3 availed the loans from the respondent Bank. D3 is the wife, D2 is the husband and D1 is the son. The family members consisting of husband, wife and son availed the loan facilities from the respondent Bank. For all the loans availed by the defenda...
The Vysya Bank Ltd. Vs. Guardian Papers Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC69
1. The Bank filed original application (OA) before the DRT, Hyderabad, for recovery of Rs. 57,90,000/- together with interest at 17% per annum as against the defendants. The Tribunal allowed the OA declaring that defendants 1 and 2 alone are liable to pay that amount and dismissed the OA as against the 3rd defendant. Aggrieved with the order the appellant Bank has preferred this appeal.2. The appellant Bank contends that the 3rd defendant is the wife of the 2nd defendant and she is the guarantor and she executed the documents Exs. A5 and A7 creating equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds and 3rd defendant also is equally liable for the suit claim. Counsel for the appellant Bank submitted that D-3 has executed the documents Exs. A5 and A7 that fasten the liability of D3 with regard to the payment of this amount, since D3 is the guarantor and has agreed and guaranteed for repayment of the loan by creating equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds, D3 is also liable for the suit...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›