Drat Madras Court July 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.
Andhra Bank Vs. K. Anji Reddy and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Jul-23-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC154
1. The Bank filed Original Application (OA) before the DRT, Hyderabad, and the PO, DRT, partly allowed the OA declaring that the defendants 1, 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 13 and 14 are liable to pay the decree amount and dismissed the claim as against the defendants 4, 5, 6 and 7. Aggrieved against that order dismissing the claim of the Bank as against defendants 4 to 7, the Bank has come forward with this appeal.2. Counsel for the appellant Bank submits that the defendants 4, 5, 6 and 7 are the previous Directors of the Company and they are also liable for the claim till the end of the guarantee period i. e. till 19.10.1982 because they executed the guarantee till that period and only afterwards the new Directors will be liable for the suit claim and till the period of the guarantee the defendants 4 to 7 are also liable i.e. till October, 1982 and the order passed by the PO, DRT, is liable to be set aside, Counsel for the respondents-defendants 4 to 7 submitted that subsequent to the Agreement ...
Syndicate Bank Vs. Mrs. Safia Alim Sait and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Jul-17-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC161
1. The Bank filed Original Application (OA) against the respondents R1 to R3 for recovery of the amount due to the Bank. R1 also created equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds in favour of the Bank. R1 and R2 are the borrowers and R3 is the guarantor. R1 is no more and R2 and R3 are her legal representatives. The PO, DRT, Bangalore, passed a decree directing the defendants to pay the decree amount jointly and severally to the applicant Bank but no mortgage decree was passed even though equitable mortgage has been created in favour of the appellant Bank. Aggrieved against that order the appellant Bank has preferred this appeal.2. Even though the respondents were served with notice the respondents never appeared and there is no representation on the part of the respondents. So the arguments of appellant Bank's Counsel alone is heard and the order is being passed.3. Counsel for the appellant Bank submits that the 1st respondent while availing the loan created equitable mortgage by ...
State Bank of Hyderabad Vs. Siddamsetty Ramesh and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Jul-10-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC111
subsequent purchaser of the property after the mortgage was created to the Bank. The PO, DRT, Hyderabad has passed order holding that the defendants 1 and 2 alone are liable for the suit claim. It has been observed by the PO that "the 3rd defendant is neither a borrower nor a guarantor for the liability of the 1st defendant and in the absence of any documents to establish the creditor-borrower relationship between the 3rd defendant and the applicant Bank, it has to be said that 3rd defendant has no 'debt' as defined under the RDB Act which he is liable to pay to the applicant" and accordingly dismissed the O.A. as against the 3rd defendant. Aggrieved against this order, the appellant Bank has come forward with this appeal.2. The Counsel for the appellant Bank submits that the 3rd defendant is the subsequent purchaser of the mortgaged property and the 3rd defendant is also liable for the suit claim to the extent of the mortgaged property in his hands. The Counsel for the respondents su...
Samrat Spinners Limited Vs. Andhra Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Jul-08-2003
Reported in: I(2004)BC162
1. Aggrieved against the order passed by the PO, DRT, Hyderabad, appointing Shri M.R.S. Appa Rao, Recovery Officer of the Tribunal and Mr. Mohd. Ubedullah, Advocate, as joint Receivers and directing them to take possession of the properties of the appellant Unit and sell the same by way of public auction and remit the sale proceeds into the Tribunal to the credit of the OA, the appellant has come forward with this appeal.2. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is now willing to run the factory and the appellant may be permitted to run the Mill and the order passed by the PO, DRT, is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the matter is also pending before the BIFR. The Company made reference to the BIFR on 27.9.2002 after passing of the order by PO, DRT. Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that it is not the case of the appellant that only after the Spinning Mill was taken over possession by the Receiver the Spinning Mill is not working, even prior to the...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›