Drat Madras Court November 2004 Judgments
State Bank of India Vs. D. Venkataramana Reddy and anr.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC113
1. Mr. K.S. Sundar, Advocate for the appellant Bank is present. Mr.Devanand, Advocate holding Mr. G.R. Swaminathan for the respondents is present.2. This miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellant/original applicant State Bank of India being aggrieved by the order dated 23.3.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of DRT, Hyderabad, in RA-4/2004 in CP-65/2003 in RP-62/2002 in OA-16/1996. By the impugned order the learned Presiding Officer allowed the appeal filed by the third party/ claimant D. Venkataramana Reddy. The said appeal was filed by him under Section 30 of the RDDB&FI Act, 1993, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Recovery Officer during recovery proceedings between the respondent Bank (appellant herein) and judgment debtors K.Subbamma @ K. Vimalamma and others. During the recovery proceedings, Recovery Officer had passed order for attaching the property of the judgment debtors but the third party claimant appeared and claimed that the same belonged to h...
Tag this Judgment!Lucky and Co. and anr. Vs. Uco Bank and anr.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC121
1. Mr. P. Thiagarajan, Advocate for the appellants is present. Mr.Srinath Sridevan, Advocate for the 1st respondent Bank is present.2. Heard both sides. This appeal is filed by the appellants/Original Judgment debtors being aggrieved by the order dated 9.3.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of DRT-I, Chennai, in MA-23/2002 in OA-357/2001. By the impugned Order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made by the appellants/defendants herein, for setting aside the Order passed in the OA by the Presiding Officer under Section 31 -A of the RDDB&FI Act, 1993.3. The contention of the appellants is that even though the Tribunal has issued the Recovery Certificate in pursuance of the decree passed by the Pondicherry Sub-Court, way back on 29.2.1996, they were entitled to hearing before the Recovery Certificate was issued under Section 31-A of the RDDB&FI Act. Mr. Srinath Sridevan, the respondent Bank's Advocate, on the contrary, has supported the order. He ha...
Tag this Judgment!Asif Alim Sait and anr. Vs. Syndicate Bank
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Nov-17-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC123
1. Mr. M. Rajan, Advocate for the appellants is present. Mr. P.Sreenivasulu, Advocate for the respondent Bank is present and tenders reply, which is taken on record.2. Heard both the sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit.Also perused the proceedings including the impugned order and Roznama of this case on which I will make comment after a little while because it is very relevant.3. This appeal is sought to be filed by the appellants/original defendant Nos. 2 and 3 namely, Mr. Asif Alim Sait and Mr. Sadiq Alim Sait, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31.12.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of DRT, Bangalore, in OA-815/1995. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the claim in favour of the Bank in part and ordered all the three defendants to jointly and severally pay to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 18,83,219.50p. with subsequent interest at the rate of 17.5% p.a.compounded quarterly from 4.8.1995 till the date of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›