Drat Madras Court August 2003 Judgments
E. Satheesh Kumar Vs. Vijaya Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Aug-19-2003
Reported in: II(2004)BC223
1 The appellant is the additional defendant impleaded as 4th defendant in the Original Application (OA). Defendants 1 to 3 filed IA-226/2002 before the DRT, Coimbatore, for appointment of Receiver to take possession of the mortgaged property and it was allowed by the Tribunal by Order dated 21.7.2003. Aggrieved against that Order the 4th defendant appellant has come forward with this appeal.2. Counsel for the appellant at the outset pointed out that the appointment of Receiver has been made by the PO, DRT, Coimbatore on the petition filed by the borrowers defendants 1 to 3 and the petition itself is not maintainable and all the petitions with regard to recovery of the amount must be filed only by the Bank. He drew my attention to the provisions of the RDDB and FI Act, 1993 under Section 17 and Section 19(1) and (2) of the Act. (1) A Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain and decide applications from the Banks and fin...
Tag this Judgment!Diamond and Gem Development Vs. Karnataka State Financial
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Aug-18-2003
Reported in: II(2004)BC191
1. The appellant filed IA-II before the DRT, Bangalore for disposal of the Original Application (OA) as not maintainable. That IA was dismissed by the Tribunal by Order dated 30.4.2001. Aggrieved against that Order the appellant has preferred this appeal.2. The appellant contends that the Term Loan facility and Working Capital facility granted to several individual beneficiaries ought to have been identified by Government of Karnataka and the applicant Karnataka State Financial Corporation (KSFC) and the amount of loan granted to each beneficiary is in the order of Rs. 25,000/- which is towards the machinery and the working capital and each loan transaction in respect of individual beneficiary is a distinct and different loan transaction and admittedly none of the beneficiaries are made parties in the OA nor the documents executed by various beneficiaries in respecl of the individual loan transactions have been produced before this Tribunal and no loan documents executed by the defend...
Tag this Judgment!Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. Vs. Star Homes and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Aug-18-2003
Reported in: III(2004)BC224
1. The defendants have filed this appeal URA-7/2003 for dismissing the Original Application (OA) by modifying the order dated 5.11.2002 in the OA. In this appeal, the appellants contend that the Tribunal ought to have waived the entire interest on the principal amount and the Tribunal ought to have granted relief taking into consideration the loss sustained by the defendants due to the acts and omissions on the part of the applicant Bank and the Bank is also liable to compensate the defendants for the loss and even the Court directions to release the flats on payment were not obeyed by the respondent Bank. The appellant further contends that the OA is barred by limitation and the equitable mortgages are not valid and the whole transaction of the Bank with the appellant is substantially unfair and only time-barred debts were converted as new demand loan and hence the OA is liable to be dismissed.2. The Bank filed Original Application (OA) against the defendant respondents for the amoun...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. S.L. Sannabhadti Vs. Bank of Baroda and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: II(2004)BC208
1. The Bank filed Original Application (OA) against the defendants for recovery of the amount due to it and the application was allowed and Recovery Certificate was ordered to be issued as prayed for in the application. Aggrieved against the Order the 4th defendant has preferred this appeal.2. According to the applicant Bank, the 4th defendant has created equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds and the 4th defendant is also liable for the suit claim and the application was allowed as against the 4th defendant also. The 4th defendant in her reply statement has contended that she has not created any equitable mortgage and she did not deposit her title deeds and she never handed over the documents of the title deeds to the applicant Bank and she is not liable for the suit claim. She further states that she has also not issued any personal guarantee and she is the absolute owner in possession of her property. She further contended that the 2nd defendant approached the 4th defendant w...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. A.V.S. Raja Vs. Indian Bank
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Aug-01-2003
Reported in: II(2004)BC232
1. This appeal arises on the Order dated 19.6.2002 passed by the PO, DRT-II, Chennai, in OA-27/2001. The main point raised in this appeal is with regard to the rate of interest. Counsel for the appellant submits that the loan was availed by the appellant only for agricultural purpose and the appellant is liable to pay interest only on the agricultural loan at concessional rate but the respondent Bank has charged more interest at 19.89% and that is excessive and the respondent Bank is not entitled to charge such high rate of interest on the agricultural loan availed by the appellant.2. Counsel for the appellant mainly relies upon the sanction letter and the Notices issued by the Bank. Of course, the loan was sanctioned only for agricultural purpose. Even in the Notice sent by the Bank dated 9.3.1998 and 15.11.1998, it has been specifically stated that the appellant approached the Bank for setting up agricultural lands project and the loan was sanctioned by the Bank for that effect. Eve...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›