Drat Madras Court March 2006 Judgments
Indian Bank Vs. Techno Futura International Ltd.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)BC133
1. Appeals MA-S4/2006 and MA-55/2006 have been preferred against the common order dated 12.12.2005, passed by the DRT-I, Chcnnai, in MAs 268 and 201/2005 in OA-538/2000. MA-268/2005 was filed praying the DRT to set aside the order dated 13.10.2004 and recall the issuance of recovery certificate issued in the OA. MA-201/2005 was filed before the DRT to modify the order dated 22.11.2003 by extending the time for payment of the balance settlement amount.2. The appellant Bank and respondents have settled their claim before the Lok Adalat and an award was passed by the Lok Adalat on 22.11.2003, permitting the respondents to effect payments within the time given and the same was not complied with by the respondents. The Bank had applied for the issuance of the recovery certificate and the respondents filed an application to defer the issuance of the recovery certificate and the same was dismissed for default by DRT's order dated 13.10.2004. The respondents filed an application for extension...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. Mohammed Siddique and ors. Vs. Uco Bank and anr.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Mar-27-2006
Reported in: III(2006)BC213
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.9.2005 in IA-60/2005 in OA-1525/2001 passed by the DRT-II, Chennai.2. The appellants have filed an application seeking permission of the DRT to cross-examine the respondent Bank's witness and the same came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed.I have heard the learned Advocate for the appellants and the respondent Bank.3. The appellants, in the affidavit filed in support of the petition before the DRT, contended, they are utter strangers to the loan transaction and the alleged guarantee document as well as creation of equitable mortgage were of fraudulent acts done, without the consent and knowledge of the appellants and that could be proved only by the cross-examination of the respondent's witness.4. The respondent Bank in their counter have stated that though the appellants denied their liability to pay the claim amount as guarantors, they have not clewed the execution of the guarantee documents or de...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Viji and anr. Vs. Indian Overseas Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Mar-23-2006
Reported in: 3(2006)BC148
1. The appellant have filed two applications in IAs 771 and 772/2004 in OA 305/2002, before the DRT-I at Chennai, for grant of interim injunction restraining the respondent Bank from proceeding further in pursuance of the notice dated 14.10.2004 issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act, till the disposal of the OA 305/2002 and both the applications came to be dismissed by order dated 22.2.2006.Aggrieved by the same, these appeals have been filed. I have heard the learned Advocate for appellants and the 1st respondent Bank.2. The 1st respondent Bank filed OA for recovery of the amount due by one M/s. Krishna Agro Chem Ltd., and for the loan obtained by the said company it appears that the appellants' property was given as security when they were minors. But however, the Court permission was obtained for mortgaging the property for the loan obtained by the said company.Now it is stated that the said company has been sold out to third parties and they arc in possession of the...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Mar-20-2006
Reported in: 3(2006)BC153
1. The 2nd respondent, which is a company, had availed loan facilities from the appellant Bank against movable securities by way of hypothecation of current assets on the guarantee given by the respondents 3 and 4. As the respondents 2 to 4 committed default in repayment, the appellant Bank filed OA-392/2000 and also obtained a Recovery Certificate on 20.1.2004 and filed Recovery Proceedings RP-32/2004. Other consortium of Banks have also taken legal proceedings against the respondents 2 to 4 among whom the 1st respondent viz., Indusind Bank Ltd. filed OA-455/2000 and recovery certificate was.issued on 1.10.2003 and pursuant to the same, it had also filed RP-512/2003 praying for attachment of the properties also appears that the 1st respondent Bank filed another OA-407/2000 against M/s. Somkan Marine Foods Ltd. in which account also, the 4th respondent was a guarantor, and obtained recovery certificate in RP-10672003 dated 7, 2.2003. The properties were attached on 14.6.2005 and it wa...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Chakarapani Vs. Indian Bank
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Mar-13-2006
Reported in: III(2006)BC223
1. The 7th defendant in TA-368/2001, on the file of the DRT-2 at Chennai, is the appellant herein. The appellant contended that he had revoked his guarantee and the suit was also not filed in time and therefore the claim against him was barred and his contentions were not accepted and the TA was decreed as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the 7th defendant has preferred this appeal.I have heard the learned Advocates for the appellant and the respondent Bank.2. Though the appellant has raised several grounds in the Memorandum of Appeal, he had restricted his argument on two grounds: 1. That the guarantee given by the appellant was revoked and therefore he is not liable; and 3. The learned Advocate for the appellant had taken me through the letter dated 3.7.1989 Exbh. B2, sent by the appellant to the respondent and the receipt of the same is not in dispute. That in the said letter the appellant had stated, "In 1984, even before my induction into the company, when the aforesaid loan ha...
Tag this Judgment!T. Maragatham and ors. Vs. Bank of Madura Ltd.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Mar-06-2006
Reported in: III(2006)BC76
1. This appeal is directed as against the order dated 30.12.2004 in TA No. 559/2001, passed by the DRT-II at Chennai.2. The defendants 5 to 9 in the OA, who are the L.Rs. of the 4th defendant, have preferred this appeal.3. The respondent Bank filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 28,89,943.61 together with future interest at the contract rate. The 1st defendant in the OA, viz. Sri Palaniappa Transports, was a firm owning fleet of lorries and was carrying on business as carriers. The defendants 2 to 4 were the partners of the 1st defendant firm. The 4th defendant viz. S.Thiyagarajan, was in charge of the 1st defendant firm at Madras. The appellants who are defendants 5 to 9, are the legal heirs of the 4th defendant viz. S. Thiyagarajan, and defendants 10 to 12 are the legal heirs of the 2nd defendant viz. R.M. S. Chockalingam.4. At the request of the 1st defendant firm, various facilities were granted by the plaintiff Bank. The 1st defendant firm had the loans on equitable mortgage, and b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›