Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : III(2005)BC181
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.1.2005 passed by the DRT, Ernakulam, in IA-2746/2004 in OA 59/2003.2. The respondent Bank filed the OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,27,23,825-23 p as on 6.1.2003 together with interest @ 19% p.a. with quarterly rests and other charges, costs and the same is pending adjudication. During the pendency of the OA, the appellant has leased out the property and, therefore, the respondent Bank filed an application IA-1766/ 2004 for the appointment of Receiver in respect of the 'A' Schedule hypothecated stock and 'B' Schedule hypothecated plant and machinery and the DRT, by its order dated 12.10.2004 appointed a Receiver to take inventory of 'A' Schedule hypothecated stocks and 'B' Schedule hypothecated plant and machinery, and to monitor the functioning of the appellant firm in respect of those properties.Subsequently, the respondent Bank filed an application IA-2746/2004 on the basis of the report dated 6.12.2004 filed by the Advoca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : III(2005)BC190
1.The 4th defendant in OA No. 8597 1999, on the file of DRT, Bangalore, is the appellant.2. The respondent Bank advanced three types of loan (1) Overdraft Facility, (2) Foreign Discounting of Bills/Foreign Bills of Exchange, and (3) Term Loan, to the Shibumi Computer Systems Pvt. Ltd., who is the respondent in the OA and 2nd respondert in this Appeal. As the company had defaulted in payment, the respondent Bank filed the OA in which defendants 1,2,3 and 5, remained ex pane and 4th defendant namely, the appellant herein, alone contested the matter and the OA was decreed as prayed for against all the defendants including the appellant herein. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant had preferred this appeal.Heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the 1st respondent Bank.3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred in this appeal as they have been arrayed in the OA.4. The learned Advocate for the appellant would submit that the 1st defendant company is a company ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : III(2005)BC193
1. The respondent Bank filed an application in IA No. 436/2001 to implead the appellant herein in TA-256/2001, and the same was allowed by the DRT-II, Chennai, by its order dated 14.12.2004. Aggrieved by the same, the proposed party preferred this appeal.The 1st respondent's husband in the TA before the DRT-II, namely, late V.C. Soundarapandian, was an employee of the respondent Bank herein.During the course of his employment, it is stated, that he had committed several misdeeds and also misappropriated the Bank's amount for which the respondent Bank had instituted a suit in OS-307/1992 before the Sub-Court, Tuticorin, and the same has been now transferred and pending in TA-256/2001 before the DRT-II at Chennai. That apart, the deceased V.C. Soundarapandian availed loan for which he had created mortgage by deposit of title deeds and as he had committed default in discharging the mortgage, the respondent Bank filed the Suit in OS-332/1994, before the Civil Court, Tuticorin, and when th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : IV(2005)BC154
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated January 19, 2005, passed in Securitisation Appeal No. 19 of 2004, by the DRT-I, Chennai.2. The first respondent-bank, namely, ICICI Bank, granted financial assistance to the second respondent for which the appellant herein had executed corporate guarantee in favour of the first respondent-bank. As the second respondent has not fulfilled its obligation, the first respondent issued a notice to the second respondent on November 20, 2002, under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), calling upon the second respondent to pay the amount due within 60 days from the date of the notice failing which the bank is at liberty to take recourse in accordance with law and the said action was challenged by the second respondent before the DRT-II, Chennai, in Securitisation Appeal No. 19 of 2004, and DRT by its order dated January ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : III(2005)BC184
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.3.2005, passed by the DRT, Bangalore, in IR-378/2001 in OA-687/1999.2. The learned Advocate for the appellant Bank submitted that the respondents remained ex parte in the OA filed by the appellants and, therefore, they have filed an application to set aside the ex parte order and the same is pending in IR-378/2001, and pending disposal of that application, there was a compromise between the appellant Bank and the respondents and they have also arrived at One Time Settlement (OTS). But in the meanwhile, on the strength of the ex parte order passed in the OA, the recovery certificate was issued and the recovery officer proceeded with the matter. That in order avoid to avoid the sale proceedings by the recovery officer, the respondents herein have filed two Interim Applications in IA No. 253/2005 and IA No. 254/2005.All these applications were taken together along with IR-378/2001, and the DRT passed a common order accepting the compr...
Tag this Judgment!