Drat Madras Court August 2005 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
M. Rafiq Deen Vs. Allahabad Bank
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Aug-31-2005
Reported in: I(2006)BC91
The 1st defendant in the O.A. viz., M/s. Vensons & Vensons, had obtained loan from the respondent Bank and they have executed security document on 1.2.1992 and one T.S. Ramesh stood guarantee for the repayment of the loan amount by the defendants 1 to 4 and had executed a continuing guarantee dated 1.2.1992 in favour of the respondent Bank. The 5th defendant is the legal heir of the deceased T.S. Ramesh. As the borrowers have not repaid the loan, O.A. 674/2001 was instituted for recovery of Rs. 16,53,855/- together with interest @ 17.85% per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation and the same was allowed by order dated 12.1.2005. The appellant who is the 6th defendant in the O.A., in his reply statement had stated that one T.S. Ramesh was the owner of Item-3 of the property and to oblige his friends S. Lakshmanan, he gave his property as security to the Indian Overseas Bank and also executed an equitable mortgage in favour of I.O.B. by deposit of title dee...
V. Nandakumar Vs. Central Bank of India
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Aug-31-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC226
At the request of the 1st defendant company and its Directors, the respondent Bank sanctioned various credit facilities by way of Cash Credit Open Loan. Overdraft against Supply Bills and three term loans, and the defendants 2 to 7, who were the Directors of the 1st defendant company, had executed letters of continuing guarantee in favour of the Bank for the repayment of the amounts and in that respect it had executed promissory notes, letter of continuity and Hypothecation Agreements also. As the defendants have not paid the amount, Bank filed O.A. for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,10,68,100/- together with interest @ 16.5% per annum, compounded once in a quarter from the date of suit till the date of realisation.2. Appellant/7th defendant's case is that he was a Director only for a short period from May, 1984 to October, 1985, and thereafter, he ceased to be a Director and the respondent Bank also accepted his resignation from the directorship and the Bank suggested that another Di...
State Bank of Hyderabad Vs. M. Somasundaram
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Aug-29-2005
Reported in: I(2006)BC62
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.2003, passed by the DRT-I, Chennai, the State Bank of Hyderabad, Chennai-6, has preferred this appeal.The question involved in this appeal is whether the property tax, water and sewerage tax and electricity dues and also the amount due to flat owners association are public charges in respect of the property sold, to be discharged by the seller of the property.2. The property of the defendant in the OA was mortgaged to the appellant Bank and the same was brought to sale by public auction held on 20.9.2001 by the Recovery Officer of the DRT, and the respondent herein namely, Mr. M. Somasundaram, purchased the property in the public auction for a sale consideration of Rs. 8,10,000/-. After purchase, the respondent came to know that there were dues in respect of property tax, water and sewerage tax, electricity dues, to the extent of Rs. 59,227/- and a sum of Rs. 12,600/- payable to the Flat Owners Association, and in all Rs. 71,827/-. The said amount...
State Bank of India Vs. Fletcher Pioneer (India) Pvt.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: 1(2006)BC1
Aggrieved by the Order dated 18.1.2005 passed by the DRT, Bangalore, in AOR-12/2004, the 1st respondent there in namely, State Bank of India, has preferred this appeal.The facts which are leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows.1. The appellant Bank had filed OA-725/1995 against the 2nd respondent viz., C.C. George, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,84,495.98p. and the said OA was allowed by order dated 24.4.1999. The Bank during the pendency of the OA came to know that the 2nd respondent herein had disposed of the property to the 1st respondent for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,44,00,000/- (Rupees one crore and forty-four lakhs only). It is stated that the 1st respondent had issued a cheque dated 16.6.1998 in favour of the 2nd respondent for a sum of Rs. 17,00,000/- that being the part of the sale consideration had chosen to withhold the said sum as that being the amount due to the appellant Bank by the 2nd respondent with a specific understanding that the said cheque will ...
National Textile Corporation Vs. Syndicate Bank
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: I(2006)BC54
The 12th defendant in TA No. 1437/2002 before the DRT, Coimbatore, is the appellant.1. Syndicate Bank, the respondent in this appeal filed OS No. 1022/1988 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, against the defendants 1 to 12 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 36,50,917.66p. Its case was that the defendant No. 1 was limited company in which defendant No. 2 was a Director along with one R.R. Ramasamy since deceased, defendant Nos. 3 to 11 were the legal representatives of the said R.R. Ramasamy, that the defendant No. 1 approached the respondent Bank to provide credit facilities for importing machinery from M/s. Itoh and Company Limited, Osaka, Japan, and at the request of the 1st defendant company, the respondent Bank gave guarantee on 26.5.1965 to the said company for Yens 6,27,56,316/- equivalent to Indian money of Rs. 8.33 lakh and the amount was increased to Rs. 13.21 lakh. That in consideration of the Bank guaranteeing the payment of the amount to M/s. Itoh & Company Ltd., d...
Anne'S Collection Pvt. Ltd. And Vs. State Bank Of India And Anr.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Aug-09-2005
Reported in: II(2006)BC182
1. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 3.2.2005 passed by the DRT (Andhra Pradesh & Karnataka) at Bangalore in IA-727/2004 in OA-251/1998.2. Admittedly, the OA was decreed in favour of the respondent Bank as early as on 31.1.2002. That thereafter, the respondent Bank filed an application for amendment of the Schedule 'C' in the OA, in the year 2004, stating that the 2nd defendant mortgaged the property described in the Schedule 'C' of the OA and by mistake the 'C' Schedule property was described as HAL II Stage instead of HAL III Stage and it is a typographical error, and the same was allowed by DRT only on the ground that the amendment is permissible even after the disposal of the OA or even the second Appeal. The said order is under challenge in this appeal.3. The learned Advocate for the appellant submits that he never mortgaged the property as claimed by the respondent Bank and the amendments sought for is not only belated but also not sustainable in ...
State Bank of India Vs. Monarch Cyber Solutions Limited
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Aug-09-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC204
1. Aggrieved by the Order dated 30.11.2004 passed by the DRT, Hyderabad, in OA 454/2000, the State Bank of India has preferred this Appeal. The brief facts of the case of the appellant are as follows: The 1st defendant Company borrowed the amount to which the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 as its Directors stood as guarantors. Defendants 5 to 7 have offered corporate guarantee. The 1st defendant Company was dealing with the software/hardware items such as computers, printers, furniture, fittings, etc. The loan, obtained by the 1st defendant company was not discharged and hence, the Appellant Bank filed the OA.2. The defendant Nos. 1, 5, 6 and 7 remained ex parte. The 2nd defendant filed the written statement and defendants 3 and 4 together have filed a separate written statement. That in the written statement of the 2nd defendant, it had admitted the borrowings from the appellant Bank and also further admitted that the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 have guaranteed the repayments of the loans. It is al...
innovative Marine Foods Ltd. Vs. Indian Bank
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Aug-02-2005
Reported in: IV(2006)BC7
1. The appellant is an Industrial Company against whom the respondent Bank filed OA No. 355/2002 on the file of DRT, Ernakulam. Before the DRT, the appellant filed an application IA-671/2003 contending that the appellant had already been declared as a sick industrial company by the BIFR (Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction). Under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, as early as on 12.11.1999 and, therefore, as per Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, no suit or other proceedings will lie against the appellant company and guarantors, without the leave of the BIFR and prayed for the dismissal of the OA but, however, the said application was filed under Section 19(25) of the RDDB&FI Act, 1993. The DRT dismissed the said petition on the ground that there is no merit in the said IA in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in , Kailash Nath Agarwal and Ors., Appellants v. Prades...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›