Drat Madras Court September 2005 Judgments
Indian Bank Vs. Humera Mumtaz and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Sep-29-2005
Reported in: I(2006)BC72
1. The applicant Bank in OA is the appellant. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.12.2001, passed by the DRT-I, Chennai, the Indian Bank has preferred this appeal.Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are as follows : 1. The appellant Bank sanctioned credit facilities to the 1st defendant such as packing credit, and foreign bills purchase/foreign bills negotiated. That in order to secure due repayment of those facilities, the 1st defendant had executed demand promissory note, agreement of hypothecation of movable plants and machinery. Defendants 2 to 4 executed agreement of guarantee and they have also created an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds of their properties in favour of the appellant Bank. The 2nd defendant is the husband of the proprietrix of the 1st defendant. As the defendants have not repaid the amount, the appellant Bank filed OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,66,78,382/- together with interest @ 21.75% p.a. with quarterly rests.2. As the a...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. Sri Gowrisankar Rice Mill and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Sep-21-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC238
Heard the learned Advocate for the appellant Bank and respondents 3 to 5 and 11 to 13. Other respondents remained exparte.1. This regular appeal is directed against the Order dated 30.4.2004 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Visakhapatnam in OA 957/2002.The appellant Bank filed suit in OS No. 102/1985 before the Subordinate Judge, Sub-Court, Kovvur (Andhra Pradesh) for recovery of the amount due by the respondents. At that time, the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDDB & FI Act) was not passed. Preliminary decree was passed by the Civil Court on 13.4.1992 and time was given up to 13.10.1992 for redemption. As the respondents have not redeemed the mortgage within the time stipulated by the Civil Court, the appellant Bank filed final decree application in IA 1902/1992 in the year 1992 itself and the said final decree petition was dismissed on 26.6.1997 for certain non-compliance. That thereafter, the appellant Bank filed an application to r...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. Regional General Manager, the
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Sep-08-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC244
1. This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 19 11.2003 passed by the DRT, Hyderabad, in OA 283/2001.2. The only grievance of the appellant is that the 1st respondent/4th defendant without verifying the supplier had made the payments and had invoked the guarantee against the appellant and it turned out that the supplier was a fictitious person and if the 1st respondent had taken diligent care in verifying this would not have happened and the appellant Bank would not have run into loss. The argument of the appellant cannot be countenanced for the reason that there is nothing on record to show that the 1st respondent made payments to a person who is fictitious and in the absence of the same, it cannot be said that the 1st respondent was not at all diligent in verifying the supplier.3. Further, on going through the Bank Guarantee furnished by the appellant, it is in unequivocal term that, "In case the Buyer fails to pay as aforesaid, we undertake that we shall on the first demand f...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. Teletek India Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Sep-02-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC220
1. The applicant Bank in the OA-22/ 1999 before DRT, Hyderabad, is the appellant herein. At the time of filing the OA, there were only three respondents. The applicant Bank filed the OA for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,75,57,076.29 p. from the defendants together with interest and costs as prayed for. During the pendency of the OA, 3rd defendant namely R.S.N. Raju, filed an application praying to strike off his name as the 3rd defendant from the OA and also discharge him from the liability and add one B. Sitaramaiah, Managing Director of the 1st respondent company, and the said application was taken up for consideration by the DRT on 6.3.1996 and passed order, "Applicant filed affidavit with documents, Mr. B.V.R. has filed an application to implead one Sri B. Sitaramaiah as party. Applicant has no objection to implead Shri B. Sitaramaiah as defendant. Issue SS to him. Amendment made." Pursuant to the said proceedings, B. Sitaramaiah was added as 4th respondent in the OA and all the resp...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›