Drat Madras Court January 2006 Judgments
Dr. S. Valliappan Vs. Indian Bank
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Jan-19-2006
Reported in: III(2006)BC35
1. The petitioner/appellant filed four Applications IA-374 to 377 of 2004 in OA-781/2001, and they all came to be dismissed by order dated 2.5.2005 passed by the DRT-II at Chennai. Aggrieved by the same these appeals have been filed.2. Appeal MA-16/2005 has been filed against the dismissal of IA-374/2004 filed before the DRT, to implead seven parties as defendants in the OA MA-17/2006 has been filed as against the dismissal of IA-375/2004, praying the Tribunal to permit to make corrections in the reply statement. MA-18/2006 has been filed as against the dismissal of IA-376/2004 to permit the petitioner to file Additional Reply Statement MA-19/2006 has filed against the dismissal of IA-377/2004 praying the Tribunal to permit the petitioner to cross-examine the applicant Bank's witness.The learned Advocate for the petitioner/appellant would state the petitioner is one of the Director and guarantor and he alone was singled out and the original application was filed in OA-781/2001. The ap...
Tag this Judgment!Veneers Laminations (India) Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Jan-13-2006
Reported in: II(2006)BC140
1. The respondent Bank filed the OA for recovery of Rs. 3,37,09,121.11p together with interest @ 19.5% p.a. with quarterly rests from the date of filing or the OA till realisation.2. The 1st appellant company who is defendant No. 1 in the OA, is a Public Limited Company, a joint sector project promoted by Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation. The company became a sick unit and, therefore, the matter was referred to BIFR who declared it as a sick unit on 29.5.1991. BIFR sanctioned the rehabilitation scheme for revival of the company on 29.2.1994 and that also could not be implemented and ultimately BIFR recommended for winding up of the unit.Even after the Advocate notice, the company did not pay the amount and hence Bank filed the suit.3. The defendants resisted the claim by filing the reply statement, which runs as follows. The defendants denied their liability. It is stated that after filing of the OA, a proposal for rehabilitation was under consideration and during the s...
Tag this Judgment!Cheriapanda K. Uthappa and ors. Vs. State Bank of India
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Jan-06-2006
Reported in: II(2006)BC135
1. This is an application filed under Section 21 praying to waive the pre-deposit as required under the RDDB & FI Act, 1993.2. The appellants are the defendants 5 to 8 in the OA and it is stated that they are the purchaser of certain items of properties, which were mortgaged to the respondent Bank. It is submitted that the appellants are neither borrowers nor guarantors for the money advanced by the respondent Bank. As such, they claim that they are not liable to make any pre-deposit as required under the Act.4. Section 21 of the Act, deals with deposit of the amount of debt due on filing an appeal, which reads as under, "where an appeal is preferred by any person from whom the amount of financial debt is due to a Bank or a financial institution or a consortium of Banks or financial institutions, such appeal shall not be entertained by the Appellate Tribunal unless such person has deposited with the Appellate Tribunal seventy five percent of the amount of debt so due from him as d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›