Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : II(2005)BC159
1. This substantive appeal is filed by the appellant/applicant Bank being aggrieved by the judgment and Order dated 17.3.2004, passed by the learned PQ of DRT, Bangalore, in OA-369/1996. By the impugned Order the learned PO allowed with cost the claim of the Bank directing defendant No. 1 Mr. B.C. Kotrappa, to pay to the applicant Bank amount of Rs. 14,14,052.28 p with subsequent interest at the rate of 21% per annum with quarterly rests from the date of filing of the application till the date of realisation. The learned PO, however, dismissed the claim of the Bank as against defendant No. 2 Smt. B.H. Seshamma, and defendant No. 3 Dr. V. Venkatesh. The appellant Bank is aggrieved because of the dismissal of claim against defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and hence, appeal is limited to that extent.2. I have heard Mr. P. Sreenivasulu, Advocate for the appellant Bank.Respondent did not appear though they were duly served. I have also gone through the proceedings and in my view, the learned PO has ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : II(2005)BC173
1. This substantive appeal is filed by the appellant/Original applicant State Bank of India, being aggrieved by the judgment and Order dated 29.10.2004, passed by the learned Presiding Officer of DRT, Bangalore, in OA-866/1999. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the OA with cost in favour of the Bank directing defendant Nos. 1 to 5 to personally pay to the applicant Bank jointly and severally, sum of Rs. 11,19,479.19 p with subsequent interest at the rate of 15.80% p.a. compounded quarterly from the date of application till the date of realisation. He further gave direction with respect to the enforcement of securities by giving direction that the applicant Bank should cause the sale of Schedule 'A' hypothecated properties, Schedule 'B' mortgaged property belonging to defendant No.4 and Schedule 'C' mortgaged property belonging to defendant No. 6 for the purpose of realisation of the above debt. A further directions, thereafter, given that the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : II(2005)BC155
1. This substantive appeal is filed by the appellants/Original defendant No. 5 being aggrieved by the judgment and Order dated 7.11.2003, passed by the learned PO of DRT, Bangalore, in O.A. No.1248/1995 By the judgment and Order the learned PO allowed the OA with cost and ordered defendant Nos. 1 to 5 to pay to the applicant Bank jointly and severally sum of Rs. 17,84,2717- with subsequent interest at the rate of 21.5% p.a. with quarterly rests from the date of application till the date of realisation. He also gave certain consequential declarations and ordered issuance of Recovery Certificate in the above stated terms. Being aggrieved, only the original defendant No. 5 Mr. Shantilal Jain has preferred this appeal in this Appellate Tribunal. The original defendant Nos. 1 to 4 remained ex parte and it was only defendant No. 5 who had filed a written statement in the DRT.2. I have heard Mr. S. Ravi, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. K.Ramasamy, Advocate for the respondent-Bank I have a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : II(2005)BC177
1. This Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant-third party M/s.Shivmoni & Co., being aggrieved by the order dated 2.12.2002, passed by the learned Presiding Officer of DRT, Bangalore, in I.A. 6 in OA No.702/1996. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made by the appellant in which they prayed that the order of attachment before judgment passed on 15.4.1993 in LA. No.2/1993, be forthwith vacated and the attachment be lifted with respect to the said property. According to the third party, the said property belonged to them and it was a property of that Partnership Firm, M/s.Shivmoni Co., and that it did not belong to the 2nd defendant as contended by the applicant Bank.It was the contention of the appellants that the said property, though it was obtained in the name of defendant No. 2, who was one of the partners of the said firm, way back in the year 1965, it was in fact the property of the partnership firm inasmuch as it was purchase...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : II(2005)BC165
1. This substantive appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and Order dated 11.6.2004, passed by the learned PO of DRT, Ernakulam, in OA-105/2001. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the OA filed by the Bank and ordered the defendants to pay to the applicant Bank sum of Rs. 15 lakhs with the interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum from 16.8.1998 (from the date of transaction of loan) to 24.4.2001 (date of filing of the OA) and, therefore, at the rate of 14% p.a. to the date of decree and 12% p.a. as future interest (post-decree) till realisation and also proportionate costs, etc. He also gave certain consequential declarations and ordered issuance of Recovery Certificate in the above stated terms. Being aggrieved, the appellants have approached this Appellate Tribunal by filing this appeal but their grievance is limited only with respect to the interest portion. Hence, the scope of the appeal is ...
Tag this Judgment!