Drat Madras Court April 2006 Judgments
Mohan Metals and anr. Vs. Dena Bank
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: III(2006)BC214
1. On the proposal given by the appellants for One Time Settlement (OTS) of the amount due, the respondent Bank forwarded the minutes of the meeting to the appellants herein by their letter dated 2.9.2005 which runs as under: As per the discussions we had today at 6.15 p.m. along with General Manager (RML) Shri PL Jakkanwar and Regional Manager, Shri S. Dharamarajan, and Shri G. Thulukkananam, Senior Manager, George Town Branch, Chennai, the following agreement has been reached for settlement of Bank's dues. Amount agreed to be paid: Rs. 50.00 lakh in total for the OTS out of which- 1. First instalment of Rs. 25.00 lakh has to be paid before 30.9.2005. 2. Second instalment of Rs. 25 lakh has to be paid before 31.12.2005. The said OTS compromiseproposal will be forwarded to Competent Authority at our Head Office, Mumbai for sanction/proposal/approval.2. It is the contention of the appellant that One Time Settlement (OTS) means the amount offered and agreed by both the parties in full q...
Tag this Judgment!Shakura Prime Tanning Co. and anr. Vs. Central Bank of India and anr.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Apr-27-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC7
1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 30th November, 2005 in appeal No. 5 of 2005 in LA. No. 27/2005 in D.R.C.18/2003 in T.A. 342/2001, passed by the D.R.T. 2 at Chennai.2. The appellants are the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the Original Application and the said Original Application was decreed on 10th April, 2002. Pursuant to the decree, their properties were brought to sale on 8th September, 2004, and was sold and the sale was also confirmed in favour of the auction purchaser on 2th November, 2004, The appellants have filed an application in the month of November, 2004 challenging the sale and it was dismissed by the Recovery Officer and the sale was confirmed and the same was affirmed by the learned Presiding Officer by his order dated 30th November, 2005. Hence this appeal.Heard the learned Advocate for the appellants and the respondents also perused the appeal papers.3. The appellants challenged the sale held on 8th September, 2004, mainly on the following...
Tag this Judgment!P. Shamil Ahmed Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Apr-26-2006
Reported in: III(2006)BC210
1. The appellant is the auction purchaser of the properties in the public auction held on 11.1.2005. Six items of properties were brought to sale on that day. In fact, a corrigendum was issued in respect of Item 5 of the property where by the extent and the upset price of the property were reduced. The auction purchaser is the successful bidder of Items 5 and 6 of the properties. Subsequent to the auction, the Recovery Officer also gave a letter to the appellant on 1911.2005 stating that P. Shamil Ahmed and four others have participated in the public auction held on 11.1.2005 for sale of piece and parcel of the properties and they have been declared as successful bidders.Subsequently, the Recovery Officer suo motu passed order on 18.2.2005 stating, "On perusal of the title deeds and other original documents relating to the auctioned properties, it is found that in respect of Item No. 5, the boundaries and dimensions as specified in the document do not conform with the description prov...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Mohammed Shareef and ors. Vs. Central Bank of India
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
Reported in: III(2006)BC217
1. The defendants filed appeal as against the final order passed in OA by the DRT-II, Chennai. OA was decreed together with interest for the pendente lite and post-order period. Appellants valued the appeal only for the amount decreed and not for the pendents lite interest and the office raised objection that the appellants should calculate the interest and add the same together with decreed amount and pay Court fee. The appellants are not satisfied with the return and the appeal is posted before the Tribunal for orders.2. The learned Advocate for the appellants contended that at the lime of filing the appeal, the interest awarded for pendente lite need not be included for the purpose of valuation of the appeal. It is further submitted that no where in the Act or in the rules, it is stated that the interest payable subsequent to the date of filing of application should be included in the subject matter of the appeal. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision rendered b...
Tag this Judgment!Corporation Bank and anr. Vs. Avanthi Leathers Ltd.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Apr-17-2006
Reported in: III(2006)BC227
1. This appeal is directed as against the order dated 16.12.2005 passed by the DRT, Hyderabad, in pending SA-156/2005.Both the learned Advocates for the appellants and the respondent are heard.2. As against the measures taken by the appellants under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act, the respondent preferred an application before the DRT, Hyderabad, which is pending in SA-156/2005. During course of the argument, from the appeal papers, it is revealed that the appellants have issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act, in respect of two properties. One is situated at Varadapalayam and the other at Thirumudivakkam, Chennai. But however, at the time of taking measures under Section 13(4), the appellants have issued first possession notice only in respect of the property at Varadapalayam on 15.10.2005, and subsequently issued another possession notice in respect of the property situated outskirts of Chennai also, on 17.10.2005. As against the first possession notice...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›