Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : II(2004)BC238
1. The applicant Bank the Vysya Bank Ltd., is a Scheduled Bank registered under the Banking Regulations Act, having its branches all over India and one of such branch to Mount Road, Chennai and also at Coimbatore which is now represented by its Chief Manager. The applicant Bank has filed the present transferred application against the defendants and claims Recovery Certificate to be issued for a sum of Rs. 66,91,009.64 p. against them jointly and severally together with contractual rate of interest from the date of filing of TA till the date of realization. The applicant Bank has further prayed for sale of Schedule mentioned properties. The applicant Bank also prayed for the cost and other relief(s) which are necessary for rendering justice.2. The brief facts raising to the present TA are that the D1, M/s.Meridian Electric Company is a partnership firm for which defendants D2 and D3 are its partners. The firm was engaged in the manufacture of winding wires, enamelled copper wires whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : I(2004)BC220
1. The respondent Bank filed Original Application (OA) for recovery of the amount due to it. The Bank also sought for the relief of appointment of Advocate Commissioner to take inventory of the A-Schedule property of the 1st defendant Company. The PO. DRT, Hyderabad on 22.5.2000 appointed one Mr. S.M. Subhani, Advocate, as Commissioner to take inventory of the A-Schedule properly. The Commissioner was also directed to execute the warrant after issuing notices to both the parties. Commissioner then filed his report on 4.7.2000 after taking inventory of the articles found in the premises.The Commissioner has stated in his report that when he went to the factory premises and carried out the inventory, the officials of the applicant Bank and the 2nd defendant appellant were present. What all the Commissioner found in the premises during inventory, he has recorded it and he has stated it in his report dated 4.7.2000. From his report it is evident that at the time of taking inventory the Ba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : II(2004)BC72
1. Aggrieved against the order passed by the PO, DRT, Coimbatore for appointment of surveyor and Advocate Commissioner to prepare and submit a report on the disputed carpet area of the suit property, the appellant Bank has preferred this appeal.2. The respondent borrowed amount from the applicant Bank for construction purposes and the building was constructed and it was let out to the Bank from 1.10.1996 at the rate of Rs. 5.25 per sq. ft. The Bank has been paying the rent at such rate for the total plinth area of 8,197 sq. ft. which is covered under the lease agreement and that rent amount was being adjusted towards the loan amount till now. The lease agreement reveals that the plinth area is only 8,197 sq.ft.3. The Counsel for the respondent submits that the total plinth area is 10,100 sq. ft. and the rent must be paid for that entire area of 10,100 sq. ft. But the lease agreement clearly reveals that the total plinth area is only 8,197 sq. ft. If really plinth area was 10,100 sq. f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : II(2004)BC68
1.The appeal is directed as against the final Order passed by the DRT, Ernakulam, allowing the claim of the Bank. The appellants challenge the Order passed by the Tribunal on the grounds that no documents were placed before the Tribunal in connection with the Statement of Account for the period prior to 6.8.1980 from 1973 and the Tribunal also did not ascertain the interest applicable as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and the appellant had made one-time payment of Rs. 9 lakhs which was accepted by the Bank in full settlement of the liability. With regard to the case of the appellant that no documents were placed before the Tribunal in connection with the Statement of Account for the period prior to 6.8.1980 from 1973, the Bank has filed only the Statement of Account for the period from 6.8.1980. The defendant availed OD facility from the year 1973 and then the OD facility was enhanced to Rs. 9 lakhs on 30.10.1980. The Statement of Account reveals that it is a running ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : I(2004)BC223
1. Aggrieved against the order passed by the PO, DRT, Hyderabad disallowing pendente lite interest, the appellant Bank has come forward with this appeal. So, the appeal is confined only with regard to pendente lite interest.2. The Counsel for the appellant Bank submits that even for pendente lite interest, the Bank is entitled for contractual rate of interest since the borrower respondent is not an agriculturist, it is not a sick unit and the respondents are residing abroad and they are making good profit in their business and they are not entitled for any concession for the pendente lite interest. He further pointed out that the capacity of debtors, value of security, conduct of parties., etc., have to be taken into consideration while deciding the pendente lite interest. He further submits that even pendente lite interest, the Bank is entitled for contractual rate of interest.3. The Counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondents are dealing in software business and the so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : II(2004)BC97
1. The appeal is directed as against the order passed by the PO, DRT-II, Channai in IA-375/2001. The defendents filed this petition for impleading Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC) as a necessary party in the OA.2. It is the case of the defendant that since the policy has been taken from ECGC at the request of the Bank for availing packing credit and foreign bills purchase, the ECGC is a necessary party to the proceedings.3. The Counsel for the appellants submits that ECGC policy is between ECGC and the borrower. She further submits that there is a condition even in the sanction letter that for availing this packing credit (hypothecation) facility, policy should be taken from ECGC and ECGC should be made as a necessary party to this proceeding. She further says that there is a tripartite agreement arrangement between the parties the borrower, ECGC and the Bank.4. The Counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that ECGC is not all a necessary party to the proceedings before the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : II(2004)BC248
1. The appeal is directed as against the interim Order dated 18.2.2003 passed by the Tribunal to pay the admitted amount of guarantee as admitted by the appellant Syndicate Bank. The interim Order was passed on the ground that the appellant Syndicate Bank admitted the amount of guarantee as the Syndicate Bank executed guarantee for the amount and the Syndicate Bank is required to fulfil the obligation in terms of guarantee.2. It is the case of the respondent Allahabad Bank that the Syndicate Bank has issued two Bank guarantees BG No. 34/1989 & BG No. 35/1989 in favour of the 2nd defendant M/s. Dhanalakshmi Consolidates Industries Ltd., Chennai, guaranteeing payment of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- (BG No.34/1989) and also guaranteeing payment of a further sum of Rs. 3,75,00,000/- (BG No. 35/89) to the 2nd defendant and both these guarantees were executed by the Syndicate Bank on 29.4.1989 but the Bank Guarantee BG No. 34/89 stands discharged as the lease rentals due under it were paid of by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : II(2004)BC91
1. Aggrieved against the Order dated 7.8.2003 passed by the PO, DRT, Coimbatore, for sale of the hypothecated goods, the appellants have come forward with this appeal. Counsel for the appellants submits that what has been sold by the Receiver are the hypothecated goods, the value of the goods is more and it is more than about Rs. 3 crores and the hypotheca has been sold for a very meagre sum of Rs. 40,10,000/- and so the appellants are much prejudiced on that and the Order passed by the PO, DRT, for sale of the hypothecated goods for Rs. 40,10,000/- is not sustainable. He further pointed out that there is also no valuation by the Bank for the hypothecated goods and the goods have been sold by the Receiver for a very small amount and the borrower is very much affected by the sale of the goods and there is no need for the sale immediately and the sale can be conducted by the Tribunal in fresh manner and the defendant can be permitted to take part in the proceedings.2. Counsel for the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : II(2004)BC77
1. The Appellant D-13 filed IA-131/ 2003 before the DRT, Bangalore fordismissal of the main OA of the applicant Bank as not maintainable.That petition was dismissed by the PO, DRT, Bangalore. Aggrieved against that order the Appellant has come forward with this Appeal.2. The Counsel for the appellant submits that the OA filed by the Bank itself is not maintainable since the defendants do not owe any money to the Bank and the discounting of cheques and it is not Banking business and the OA filed by the Bank itself is not maintainable. The Counsel for the appellant further submits that there is no pleading at all in the plaint with regard to the amount due by D-13 and the OA filed by the Bank is not maintainable.3. The Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that whether the OA filed by the Bank is maintainable or not or whether the Defendants owe any money to the Bank, all these things can be decided only in the OA by elaborate enquiry and that cannot be decided in the Interlocutory Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : II(2004)BC79
1.Aggrieved against the Order passed by the PO, DRT-I, Chennai, directing the Bank to pay Rs. 5,000/- per mensem as interim rent and Rs. 60,000/- initially to the third party, the appeal is preferred by the appellant Bank.2. One MOH Leathers Pvt. Ltd. was the tenant under the landlord the third party MOH Leathers Pvt. Ltd. did not pay the rent and it committed wilful default and rent control proceedings were initiated and eviction was ordered, EP was filed and eviction order was executed and the landlord third party took possession of the premises through Court. At the time of handing over the possession to the landlord, the hypothecated goods, plant and machineries, stocks and raw materials of MOH Leathers Pvt. Ltd. were present in the premises and the landlord was handed over possession only with these hypothecated goods. The Bank then sent letter dated 21.7.2001 to the landlord stating that the Bank is holding first charge on the hypothecated plant and machineries, stocks and raw m...
Tag this Judgment!