Drat Madras Court May 2003 Judgments
State Bank of India Vs. Maharaja Saw Mill Pvt. Ltd. and
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: May-21-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC106
1. The appellant Bank filed IA-703/ 2002 for injunction restraining the respondents from removing the timber lying in M/s. Dix Shipping Company, Panambur, Mangalore/Mangalore Port, imported by the 1st respondent and exported by the 8th respondent under Bills of Lading Nos. EL/MG19-06, EL/MG 19-07, EL/MG10-08, EL/MG19-09, EL/MG19-10 and EL/MG19-11 pending disposal of the Original Application. The 1st respondent availed loan facility from the appellant Bank, Letter of Credit facility of Rs. 3 Crores and Cash Credit facility of Rs. 1 Crore. For that loan facility, the Stock-in-Trade timber logs and allied items lying in various ports and godowns were hypothecated to the Bank apart from mortgaging the properties of the guarantors of the Company.2. Counsel for the appellant Bank submitted that even the immovable securities given by the respondents 1 to 7 are not valuable security and the respondents 1 to 7 have played fraud upon the appellant Bank and the very same properties were already ...
Tag this Judgment!Canara Bank Vs. C.H. Venkataraman and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: May-09-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC32
1. Aggrieved against the Order passed by the PO, DRT-I, Chennai, directing the Bank to consider the One Time Settlement (OTS) offer made by the defendants in their representation dated 23.7.2002 as per the OTS under the modified guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and shall make necessary compromise after receiving the balance amount from the defendants within 30 days from the date of confirmation of acceptance of the offer by the Bank and also directing the Bank to return the title deeds of the mortgaged properties to the defendants after receiving the payment under One Time Settlement scheme as full and final settlement at the earliest, the appellant Bank has come forward with this appeal.2. Counsel for the appellant Bank submits that previously the matter was compromised under One Time Settlement for a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs and as per that compromise settlement the respondent did not pay that amount and that compromise fell through and it was also rejected by the Bank and m...
Tag this Judgment!R.N. Hathiramani Vs. Canara Bank
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: May-07-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC10
1. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is only a guarantor and he is a NRI and for the NRI to stand as a guarantor the Bank must obtain permission or the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and without obtaining permission from the RBI, the Bank has obtained the guarantee document from the appellant guarantor and so the guarantee executed by the appellant is invalid and the guarantee cannot be invoked and no proceedings can be taken against the appellant. Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that it is not mandatory on the part of the Bank to obtain permission of the RBI before taking NRI as guarantor and the appellant is the Director of the 1st defendant Company and he is also the guarantor and all the loan documents are signed by the appellant and the appellant has also signed the Guarantee document and the appellant is liable for the suit claim.2. Counsel for the appellant relies upon the instructions given in the application form and submits that the Bank must obtain p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›