Drat Madras Court February 2006 Judgments
Indian Bank Vs. Narasimhan Ashok Srinivasan and
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Feb-27-2006
Reported in: II(2006)BC187
1. The appellant Indian Bank, Singapore Branch, had filed a suit before the Court at Singapore and after filing of the suit, principal borrowers namely the company became insolvent and by operation of law, the said suit came to be discontinued and the company having been declared as insolvent, the appellant Bank had filed a claim before the Official Liquidator and their claim was accepted. That, thereafter, the appellant had some information that the guarantors are having some properties in India, and they would be able to satisfy the debt due to the appellant, filed the OA before the DRT 2 at Chennai and the said OA came to be dismissed by order dated 8.6.2005. Aggrieved by the same this appeal has been filed.I have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the respondents.2. The fact that the appellant had already taken out the recovery proceedings by filing a suit before the Singapore Court, is not in dispute. After the legal action taken before the Singapore Court, the firs...
Tag this Judgment!H.B. Jayaraj Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Feb-16-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)BC13
1. This Regular Appeal is directed against the Order dated 23.11.2004 in OA 981/1997, passed by the DRT. Bangalore.2. The appellant herein is the Legal Representative (LR) of the original 3rd defendant in the OA. The 3rd defendant died during the pendency of the OA, And the appellant was brought on record as the LR of the 3rd defendant and who had contested the OA.3. The 1st defendant is a Company and defendants 2 and 3 were its Directors. The fact that the 1st defendant Company borrowed the amount claimed in the OA is not in dispute. The claim of the 3rd defendant is that he resigned from the directorship on 24.1.1997 and, therefore, he is not liable to pay any amount. The second objection is that the 4th defendant in the OA namely, State of Karnataka, had executed a Deed of Guarantee in favour of the Applicant Bank on 16.1.1988 and, therefore, the liability if any, has been absolved and the 3rd defendant is not at all liable to pay any amount to the applicant Bank, Originally the Ba...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›