Drat Madras Court April 2004 Judgments
ing Vysya Bank Ltd. and ors. Vs. Shree Arcee Steels Pvt. Ltd. and
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC112
1. Original Suit (OS-295/1980) was filed in the Civil Court, Bangalore and the Civil Court passed the decree and final decree was also passed by the Civil Court. When Execution Petition (E.P. No. 60/1994) was filed before the Civil Court, the RDDB & FI Act, 1993 came into force and the case was transferred to DRT, Bangalore, and all further proceedings in pursuance of the Execution Petition were taken before the DRT in OA-547/1995.2. Counsel for the respondent borrower submits that no attachment of the movable property was effected and in the Sale proclamation, only immovable property is mentioned and there is no mention of any machineries in the sale proclamation and so the sale of the machineries is not proper and the sale is liable to be set aside. Counsel for the Bank submits that with regard to the sale of the machinery, the machineries are already hypothecated to the Bank and all those machineries have been seized by the Bank and they were kept with the Bank and since those ...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. V. Chakrapani and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Apr-22-2004
Reported in: III(2004)BC269
1. The Original Application (OA) was allowed by the Tribunal by Order dated 13.1.1997. Recovery proceedings commenced. The 1st respondent filed MP-3/2001 before the Recovery Officer praying to close the recovery proceedings against immovable properties of the defaulter as barred by limitation and another petition MP-4/2001 was also filed before the Recovery Officer by M/s. V.M. Finance & Leasing Company against the property and the Recovery Officer rejected both the applications by Order dated 28.8.2002. Then the petitioner in MP-3/2001 preferred an appeal RA-1/2002 before Presiding Office and that was dismissed by the Tribunal by Order dated 4.10.2002. Again 1st respondent filed Review Petition MA-95/2002 before the Tribunal for reviewing its Order dated 4.10.2002 and the Review Petition was allowed by the Tribunal by Order dated 6.1.2003 and consequently RA-1/02 was also allowed. That Order dated 6.1.2003 is being now challenged by the Bank in this appeal.2. The Recovery Officer...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sethuraman Vs. Central Bank of India
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Apr-20-2004
Reported in: IV(2007)BC34
1. Aggrieved by the Order dated 5.1.2007, passed in IA-345/2006 in SA No. 6/2006, passed by the DRT-II at Chennai, this appeal has been filed.I have heard the learned Advocates for the appellant and the respondent.2. As against the measures taken under Section 13(4) of the SRFAESI Act, 2002, the appellant herein preferred an Appeal in SA No. 6/2006 before the DRT-II at Chennai, and the same is pending. That in the said application/appeal, the appellant had taken out an application in IA-345/2006, to direct the respondent Bank to issue a formal letter of acceptance and accept the balance payment as per the time-frame fixed by the Tribunal and to release the documents contending that at the time when the appellant sought for an interim stay of further proceedings, the DRT was pleased to order stay on 6.2.2006, on condition that an amount of Rs. 1.5 lakh to be deposited within 10 days and the balance amount of Rs. 5.5 lakh was to be paid within 15 days.The appellant paid Rs. 1.5 lakh to ...
Tag this Judgment!Vijaya Bank Vs. Cauvery Machine Tools and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Apr-08-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC211
1. The appeal is directed against the Order dated 8.11.2002 passed by the PO, DRT. Bangalore, with regard to the dismissal of the OA claim as against D2 and D3 by the appellant Bank. D1 is the main borrower and D2 and D3 are the guarantors. According to the Counsel for the appellant Bank. D2 and D3 executed the Continuing guarantee and as per the Continuing guarantee they are liable for the Suit claim and their guarantee continues till the main borrower pays that amount and the Continuing guarantee shall come to end only after issue of notice by the appellant Bank as per the conditions provided in the Continuing guarantee and after issue of notice the appeal was filed in time and the Continuing guarantee was in force and as per the Continuing guarantee, D2 and D3 are liable for the Suit claim and the dismissal of the OA as against D2 and D3 is not sustainable.2. Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that the debt is not live and so decree cannot be passed as against D2 an...
Tag this Judgment!Canara Bank Vs. Arbeit Platz (India) Pvt. Ltd. and
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Apr-06-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC109
1. Aggrieved against the order dated 31.1.2003 passed by the PO, DRT-I, Chennai, in dismissing the TA as against D4 and D5 after 13.8.1990 and awarding simple pendente lite and future interest @ 10% p.a., the Canara Bank has come forward with the appeal RA-34/2003. The defendants 4 and 5 have preferred the appeal RA-6/2004 challenging the final order passed against them. The PO, DRT has found that D4 and D5 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount due as on the date of their registration i.e. on 13.8.1990 and afterward they are not liable. The PO, DRT has found that D4 and D5 have resigned from the D1 Company from 13.8.1990 and so they cannot be held responsible to pay the loan liability of the Company which was availed after their resignation from the company.2. Arguments of the Canara Bank's Counsel already heard and the matter was again posted today for arguments on the defendants' side. No representation for the defendants. Counsel for the Bank alone present.Order is bei...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›