Drat Madras Court March 2004 Judgments
State Bank of Hyderabad Vs. A.V. Girish Naidu and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Mar-29-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC68
1. Aggrieved against the Order passed by the PO, DRT, in allowing the applications to condone the delay of 1657 days in filing the petition for setting aside the expert decree dated 26.2.1999, and staying recovery proceedings in the OA, the appellant Bank has come forward with these appeals. The PO, DRT, has found that no opportunity was given to the petitioners to cross-examine PW 1 nor their right to cross-examine the said witness was forfeited and the facts and circumstances set out by the petitioners in the affidavit filed by them and the time spent by the petitioners in trying to Settle the OA claim by addressing various letters to the respondent-Bank enable one to inter that the petitioners have been put to difficulties for no fault of theirs and that the delay caused in filing the MAIR-258/03 has been sufficiently explained and so the petition has to be allowed and the PO, DRT, has allowed the petition to condone the delay.2. Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that...
Tag this Judgment!Standard Med. and Pharma Vs. Allahabad Bank
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Mar-11-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC20
1. The appeal is directed as against the order passed in IA-842/2003 in OA-44712000. The applicant-Bank filed that IA seeking direction to be issued to the respondent for payment of the admitted amount. The PO, DRT, passed Order directing the respondent to pay the OA claim amount since the PO, DRT, has found that the defendant has categorically admitted the OA claim.2. On a perusal of the reply statement filed by the defendant it is seen that the defendant has admitted the liability only to the extent of Rs. 45.94 lakhs. It is also stated in that Reply statement that the defendant also has submitted a proposal for compromise to the applicant-Bank. It is nowhere stated in the Reply statement that the defendant has admitted the entire Suit claim amount. The defendant has categorically stated in para 6 of the Additional written statement that thereafter the defendant had paid an amount of Rs. 196.06 lakhs which has to be deducted from the outstanding amount of Rs. 242 lakhs and if the pa...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. Resha Wires Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC172
1. The Bank filed Original Application (O.A.) against the defendants 1 to 6 for realisation of the amount due to the Bank. The O.A. was decreed for a sum of Rs. 1,68,29,174.90 p. as against defendant Nos.1,2 and 4 jointly and severally with subsequent interest at 16.08.% p.a. and the O.A. was dismissed as against defendant Nos. 3,5 and 6.Aggrieved against the dismissal Order as against defendant No. 3 alone the Bank has preferred this appeal. The respondents even though served, they did not appear. Hence, the arguments of the appellant Counsel is being heard and the Order is passed on merit.2. Counsel for the appellant Bank submits that the 3rd defendant executed the guarantee under Ex. A-9 and as it is a counter guarantee the 3rd defendant is liable for the suit claim. On a perusal of Ex. A-9 document, it is seen that it is a continuing guarantee and defendant No. 3 has executed that continuing guarantee for a sum of Rs. 42 lacs along with defendant No. 2. The Presiding Officer, D.R....
Tag this Judgment!Dr. E. Prabakaran and anr. Vs. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Mar-05-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC154
1. Aggrieved against the Order passed by the PO, DRT, Coimbatore, in dismissing the application to set aside the ex parte Order as against the appellants defendants 2 and 3, the appellants have come forward with this appeal.2. Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are residing only in No. B-1/10, 3rd Cross Street, Zackaria Colony, Chennai-94, and they are not residing at No. 25A, Baroda Street, West Mambalam, Chennai-33, and the Bank also sent notice to the Zackaria Colony address only and so the summons sent to the Baroda Street address was not served on the appellants and the ex parte Order passed in their absence, is liable to be set aside.3. Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that in the loan document and other documents the appellant has given only the Baroda Street address and in the further correspondence sent by the appellant, the appellant has given only the Baroda Street, West Mambalam address and even the latest letters sent by the appellant were from ...
Tag this Judgment!Padmasree Corporation and ors. Vs. State Bank of India
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Mar-01-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC130
1. The appellants were set ex parte on 16.6.2003 and Orders were passed on 19.6.2003 allowing the OA. The appellants filed petition to set aside the ex parte decree with a petition to condone the delay of 128 days in filing the petition to set aside the decree. The PO, DRT has found that there is no sufficient cause or satisfactory explanation for the delay of 128 days and accordingly the PO declined to condone the delay and dismissed that petition. Aggrieved against that order the appellants have come forward with this appeal.2. The Counsel for the appellants submits that the delay had occurred because the appellant's husband was hospitalised and he underwent accident and heart ailment and so he could not file the petition in time.3. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the medical certificate was issued on 29.10.2003 and the 4th defendant was advised rest for one week. Further, the appellants also filed discharge notes issued by Vijaya Hospital, Visakhapatnam Ex. A2 which sa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›