Drat Madras Court October 2006 Judgments
Shilpa Homes and anr. Vs. A.P. Mahesh Co-operative Urban
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Oct-26-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC57
1. This regular appeal is directed as against the order dated 5th October, 2005 in S.A. No. 85 of 2004, passed by the D.R.T., Hyderabad.The appellants have questioned the validity of the notice issued under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of SRFAESI Act, 2002, before the D.R.T. and the D.R.T. after taking into consideration all the aspects of the case, came to the conclusion that the respondent Bank has not complied with Rule 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, regarding publication and, therefore, the measures taken under Section 13(4) of the SRFAESI Act are not maintainable and set aside the measures taken under Section 13(4) of the SRFAESI Act. As against the same, this appeal has been filed.I have heard the learned Advocates for the appellants and the respondent.2. It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the appellants that the notice issued under Section 13(2) itself is not maintainable apart from the fact that the action taken by the respondent is barred b...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Anchor Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Oct-25-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC49
1. These two miscellaneous appeals were directed as against the order dated 4th May, 2006 in I.A. No. 534 of 2005 in I.A. No. 701 of 2003 and in Original Application No. 321 of 2003, passed by the D.R.T. I at Chennai.2. The respondent No. 1 in this appeal viz. Anchor Constructions Private Ltd., filed an application to implead itself as a respondent/defendant in I.A. 701 of 2003 in Original Application No.321 of 2003. Respondent No. 1 in the affidavit filed in support of the petition before the Tribunal, has stated that they have entered into an agreement of sale in 2003 itself with the respondent No. 2 by which they have agreed to clear the liabilities of the respondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 3 Bank and in turn, the property at Kelambakkam, belonging to the respondent No. 2 was agreed to be sold to the respondent No. 1. That in pursuance of the said agreement, they have been making payments to the respondent No. 3. When they approached the respondent No. 3 in July, 2005, for rele...
Tag this Judgment!Ananthalakshmi and ors. Vs. State Bank of India
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Oct-13-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC124
1. These two Miscellaneous Appeals have been preferred as against the Common Order dated 9.8.2006, passed by the DRT-II at Chennai, in Unnumbered Appeal (SR No. 1445/2006) in DRC No. 124/2004 in OA-1286 /2001 and Unnumbered Appeal SR. No. 1447/2006 in DRC No. 123/2004 in OA-1285/2001.2. The appellants are the daughters of one R. Kaliappan, who died intestate on 5.8.1991 leaving behind him, his wife Sarojini Devi and three daughters and two sons viz. (1) Ananthalakshmi, (2) K. Namitha Bhuvaneswari, (3) Renuka Devi, (4) K. Raghavaram and (5) K. Sivaram Selvakumar. It appears that the two sons of R. Kaliappan viz. Sivaram and Raghavaram have formed a Company viz. M/s. Kalsar Petro Products (P) Ltd. and borrowed amount from the respondent Bank by producing a Legal Heir Certificate dated 11.3.1997, issued by the Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk Tahsildar, showing only Sarojini Devi, wife of the deceased and the two sons viz. Sivaram Selvakumar and Raghavaram as legal heirs and the appellants were...
Tag this Judgment!A.N. Bhat and anr. Vs. Indian Bank and anr.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Oct-12-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC28
1. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed as against the order dated 4.2.2005 made in appeal No. 14/2004 in OA No. 241/1998 by DRT, Ernakulam.2. The appellants are the defendants 2 and 4 in the OA and they have filed two applications before the Recovery Officer in IA-30/004 and IA-31/2004 to set aside the sale of Item Nos. 1 to 3 in the Schedule, and both the petitions came to be dismissed. As against the same, they have preferred an appeal before the learned PO in Appeal No. 14/2004, and the same was dismissed on 4.2.2005. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed.I have heard the leaned Advocates for the appellants and the respondents.3. The main contention that was raised in the appeal is that the sale was not properly conducted by the Recovery Officer, and the sale was adjourned on several occasions, and no fresh sale proclamation was issued, and therefore, the sale said to have been held, is not proper and valid. It is also stated that the property was not sold for a prope...
Tag this Judgment!D. Venkataramana Reddy Vs. State Bank of India and anr.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Oct-11-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC137
2. The 1st respondent Bank filed OA-16/1996 for the recovery of amount and the same was allowed and a recovery certificate dated 27.3.2002 came to be issued in favour of the Bank. During the course of the recovery proceedings, appellant viz. D. Venkataramana Reddy, who is the son-in-law of the 2nd Respondent K. Subbamma alias K. Yimalamma, filed a Claim Petition before the Recovery Officer (R.O.) claiming that he had entered into an agreement of sale with the 2nd respondent on 30.3.1985 to purchase the subject property and as she did not execute the Sale Deed, he filed a Suit in OS-68/1996 before the Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, and the said suit was decreed on 25.1.1999, and based upon the decree he claimed title to the attached property. The Recovery Officer dismissed the Claim Petition by his Order dated 30.1.2004, and the appellant herein preferred an Appeal in RA-4/ 2004 before the DRT, Hyderabad, and the same was allowed by the DRT by its Order dated 23.3.2004. As against the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Allahabad Bank Vs. A. Varadammal
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Oct-11-2006
Reported in: IV(2007)BC8
1. This RA (SA)-34/2006 is directed as against the Order dated 22.6.2005 passed by the DRT-I at Chennai, in Securitisation Appeal No.31/2004.2. The respondent viz. A. Varadammal, filed the Securitisation Appeal No. 31/ 2004 before the DRT-I at Chennai, questioning the action taken by the appellant Bank on the ground that the proceedings taken under the Securitisation Act is not maintainable as recovery proceedings had already been taken and the same is pending before the Tribunal in OA-134/2004 and, therefore, two parallel proceedings are not sustainable, and that the notice issued under Section 13(2) is not valid and proper. During the course of the argument before the Tribunal, it appears that the respondent has raised a plea that she has not received the notice issued under Section 13(2)of the SRFAESI Act.3. The learned PO of the DRT, had considered all the grounds raised by the respondent herein and rejected all the grounds, but however held that the notice said to have been issue...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›