Drat Madras Court October 2004 Judgments
Karnataka Bank Ltd. Vs. Dasprakash Paradise and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC126
1. This miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellant/Karnataka Bank Ltd./defendant No. 7 being aggrieved by the order dated October 22, 2003, passed by the learned presiding officer of the DRT, Bangalore, in I. A. No. 10 in O. A. No. 479 of 1995. By the impugned order the learned presiding officer rejected the application made by the appellant/Karnataka Bank/defendant No. 7 praying for transposing them as co-plaintiff No. 3 along with co-plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, Canara Bank and Syndicate Bank in the original application suit filed by them against defendants Nos. 1 to 6 for the purpose of enforcing their claim against the defendants. It was this application which came to be rejected by the learned presiding officer by a reasoned order dated October 22, 2003. Hence the appeal by Karnataka Bank Ltd. 2. I have heard Mr. P. R. Krishnan holding for Mr. C. T. Selvam, advocate for the appellant-Karnataka Bank Ltd. and Mr. Murtaza, advocate for respondents Nos. 1 to 6 and 10 to 14, Mr. Krish...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Bank Vs. Kay Pee Kay Medical Services Pvt.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Oct-14-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC144
1. Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, Advocate holding for M/s. Aiyar & Dolia for the appellant Indian Bank and Mr. Krishnamurthy, Advocate holding for M/s. G. Govindarajan for the respondents 1 and 2 are present.2. This Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/Original applicant Indian Bank aggrieved by the Order dated 16.4.2004 passed by the learned PO of DRT-II, Chennai, in IA-187/2003 in TA-533/2001. By the impugned Order the learned PO allowed the application made by the defendants/respondents herein wherein they had prayed/for giving direction to the applicant Bank to treat the cut-off date as 31.3.1992 with respect to Medium Term Loan (MTL) Account and Temporary Overdraft Account of the respondents and cutoff date as 22.9.1995 with respect to Clean Loan Accounts I, II & III. Further direction was given to the applicant Bank that on the basis of these cut-off dates, calculation with respect to OTS amount payable by the defendants including the legal expenses and other charges b...
Tag this Judgment!Beena Industries Vs. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Oct-13-2004
Reported in: II(2006)BC238
1. These Miscellaneous Appeals are filed by the appellants/original defendants being aggrieved by the Order dated 28.11.2001 passed by the learned PO of DRT, Ernakulam, in IA-1053/2001 in OA-1489/1998 and IA-1055/2001 in OA-1488/1998. By the impugned Orders the learned PO rejected the applications (sic).2. I have heard Mr. Rajesh holding for Mr. A.D. Baby, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Krishnamurthy, Advocate for the respondent Bank. I have also gone through the entire proceedings and the shocking things which is revealed is that when the applications dated 14.8.2001 in both the OAs were made to the DRT, Ernakulam, to set aside the ex parte decree passed on 25.1.2001, affidavit in support of the said applications was made and filed by only one of the original defendants namely, M.P. Baiju. Copy of the same is annexed as Annexure at Page No.28 of the present Appeal Memos. The other defendants have not filed any separate affidavit or supporting affidavit. The affidavit flied by th...
Tag this Judgment!Anwar Natural Button Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad and anr ...
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Oct-13-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC157
1. This Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants/Original defendants No. 1 to 4 being aggrieved by the Order dated 31.8.2004 passed by the learned PO of DRT, Hyderabad, in IA-892/2004 in OA-205/2002. By the impugned Order the learned PO rejected the application made by the appellants/defendants for setting aside the Judgment and Order passed by him on 17.2.2004 holding that such an application was not maintainable.2. I have heard Mr. K.A. Ramakrishnan, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. A.P.S. Kasturi Rangan, Advocate for the 1st respondent Bank. I have also gone though the proceedings, including the original Judgment and Order dated 17.2.2004, application IA-892/2004 made by the appellant No. 3, so also the impugned Order on the said Application/Affidavit passed on 13.8.2004, and in my view, the learned PO has correctly passed the Order.3. Proceedings reveal that the Bank had filed Original Application being OA No. 205/ 2002 against five defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Canara Bank Vs. Computer Data Application Pvt.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC139
1. This Regular Appeal is filed by the appellant/original applicant being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 30.9.1999 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of DRT, Bangalore, in OA-778/1995. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the learned PO has allowed the Bank's claim against original defendant Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5, and disallowed the same as against original defendant No. 3. The Bank is aggrieved because the learned PO exonerated defendant No. 3 and hence the appeal.2. I have heard Mr. S. Krishnamurthy, Advocate for the appellant Bank.Respondent No. 3 (Defendant No. 3) is absent though duly served. Other respondents are also absent though duly served. I have also gone through the proceedings which reveal that in the Tribunal, only defendant No. 3 appeared and contested the matter and other defendants were absent though duly served.3. Few facts which are required to be stated are as follows. The Bank filed OA against five defendants for recovery of their dues from the defend...
Tag this Judgment!The CochIn Malabar Estates and Vs. the Federal Bank Ltd. and anr.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC160
1. This Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Appellants/Original defendants being aggrieved by the Order dated 12.7.2004 passed by the learned PO of DRT, Ernakulam, in Appeal 12/2004 in OA-167/2000. By the impugned Order the learned PO dismissed the appeal which the appellants have filed against the Order of the Recovery Officer dated 18.5.2004.Hence, this appeal to this Appellate Forum.2. I have heard Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. K. Madhusoodanan, Sr. Manager (Legal) for the respondent Bank. I have also gone through the proceedings including the impugned Order dated 12.7.2004, Order dated 18.5.2004 of the Recovery Officer, so also other relevant records and in my view, the learned PO correctly passed the Order.4. The Original Application (OA) filed by the respondent No. 1 Bank namely, The Federal Bank Ltd., against the defendants came to be decreed and recovery proceedings commenced. Decree was passed by the learned PO of DRT on 5.11.2002 and Recovery Cert...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›