Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : I(2006)BC222
1. This regular appeal is directed as against the order dated November 27, 2003, passed by the DRT, Bangalore, in OA No. 496 of 1995. The second defendant in the O. A. is the appellant herein. The first defendant-company, namely, M/s, Southern Oils and Extractions Ltd. was a public limited company and M. K. Bhanu was the managing director of the said company. The second defendant in the O. A. who is the appellant herein, was one of its directors. The third defendant is an industrialist at Bangalore. During the year 1981-82, the bank sanctioned loans to the extent of Rs. 41.86 lakhs on several heads. As the company was not paying the amount due to the bank regularly, the bank filed a company petition, C. P. No. 19 of 1983, for liquidation and the High Court of Karnataka by its order dated January 8, 1984, ordered the winding up of the company. That in respect of the loan account, the first defendant, as the managing director of the company, had executed a demand promissory note for Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : I(2006)BC158
1. This Appeal is directed against the order dated 4.2.2005 passed by the DRT Ernakulam, in IA-460/2004 in OA-366/ 2002.2. The appellants are the defendants in the OA and they have filed an application in IA-460/2004, to condone the delay of 446 days in filing the reply statement arid the same came to be dismissed by the DRT by its order dated 4.2.2005 and the same is under challenge in this Appeal.3. I have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and respondent and also perused the relevant papers placed before this Tribunal.4. The appellant in the Affidavit filed before the DRT had stated that they were directed to file the written statement within two weeks from 20.11.2002 and they did not do so. The written statement was filed on 24.2.2004 and there was a delay of 446 days in filing the written statement. The delay was explained in the Affidavit by stating that the defendants were trying to settle the claim with the applicant Bank and the defendants were optimistic of settlin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : I(2006)BC214
1. By this common order, both the appeals in MA-82/2005 and MA-83/2005 are disposed of.2. The appellant in both the appeals is the 3rd defendant in OA-326/2000 and OA-327/2000, on the file of DRT, Bangalore. The appellant took out an application in both the OAs contending that the OAs are not maintainable, on the ground that the respondent Bank does not fall within the definition of Bank as defined in the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDDB & FI Act) and the respondent Bank is a foreign company established under the laws of Japan and it has not performed its obligations contemplated under Sections 592 and 593 of the Companies Act. The said petition was opposed by the respondent that it had complied with all the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, as applicable to the respondent Bank and in view of the name had undergone a change, compliance made, as required under Section 594(3) of the Companies Act, 1956, and therefore, the OA filed by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : I(2006)BC176
1. The appellant is the borrower in the O.A. 1371/2001, which O.A. was filed by the 1st respondent Bank namely Indian Bank for recovery of a sum of Rs. 17,21,609.21p together with interest thereon. During the pendency of the O.A., the respondent Bank filed an application under Section 19(25) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 to direct the 6th respondent/garnishee to deposit the rental proceeds realised from the property mentioned in the schedule to the petition and the DRT-II at Chennai by its order dated 2.8.2005, directed the 6th respondent namely, HCL Technologies Ltd. to deposit a sum of Rs. 1.5 lakh out of the rent payable to respondents 1 to 5 in the petition before the DRT every month commencing from the month of August 2005 and the same is under challenge in this appeal.2. The only point that was canvassed by the appellant in this appeal is whether the invocation of inherent power under Section 19(25) of the Act for recovery of the debt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : I(2006)BC206
That in respect of the amount due by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent Bank namely Indian Overseas Bank, instituted a suit in the High Court of Madras, and the suit was subsequently transferred to the DRT, Chennai and the same was taken on file as TA-51/1997, and the said application was decreed in favour of the Bank on 10.11.1997. As the 1st respondent did not pay the decretal amount, Recovery Certificate was issued and the property of the guarantor was brought to sale in 2000. At that time, the 1st respondent filed writ petition before the Madras High Court to set aside the order of the respondent Bank rejecting their request for settlement based upon the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and for a direction to the Bank to implement the guidelines issued by the RBI.During the pendency of the writ petition, the High Court granted stay on condition that the 1st respondent should deposit 25% of the decree amount and the same was not. compli...
Tag this Judgment!