Drat Madras Court June 2006 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
State Bank of India Vs. Mining Engg. Corporation and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Jun-27-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)BC97
1. The appellant Bank originally filed the suit OS No. 10235/1991 before the City Civil Judge, Mayo Hail, at Bangalore, and it got transferred to the DRT, Bangalore and was taken as OA-1058/1995 and the same was decreed on 18.6.1997. That thereafter, the respondents/borrowers have filed an application to set aside the final order dated 18.6.1997, which was pending in IR No. 419/2005. They have also filed two applications, one to condone the delay in filing the said M.A. and another IA to stay further proceedings of the final order. Stay was also granted in respect of further proceedings. But in the meanwhile, the respondents have filed review application in RA-4/2005 alleging that the rate of interest claimed by the appellant Bank was only @ 16.5% p.a. simple but whereas, the Tribunal awarded interest at 16.5% p.a. compounded quarterly. During the pendency of the review application, the appellant Bank filed an application in IA-1050/2005 to amend the plaint contending that the Tribuna...
Indian Bank Vs. Thangamani Real Estates
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Jun-27-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)BC125
1. Respondents moved by the DRT by filing two applications one for releasing the property situated at No. 5,3rd Cross Road, Gopal Reddy Colony, Jawahar Nagar Chennai and another application for stay of the proceedings in pending the OA-1779/2004 and both were allowed by the DRT-2 at Chennai, by order dated 14.2.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the Bank has preferred these appeals 2. The learned Advocate for the appellant has satisfied this Tribunal that the Tribunal committed an error in passing order by relying upon the representation made by the respondent that the One Time Settlement scheme dated 23.6.2004 was accepted but on the other hand the respondents themselves in the affidavit filed in support of the petitions in para 8 have stated that the Bank pressurised the respondent to accept the One Time Settlement for Rs. 72.50 lakh and they were compelled to send a letter dated 8.7.2004 accepting the OTS amount of Rs. 72.50 lakh. But, however, while accepting respondent sought time for ...
State Bank of India and ors. Vs. Tamil Nadu Steels Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Jun-26-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)BC89
1. This appeal is directed as against the Order dated 30.9.2005 in OA-34/2001 passed by the DRT-I at Chennai.2. Notice to the respondents were taken and respondents 1 and 2 were called absent and set ex parte on 17.3.2006. Respondent No. 3 is the Official Liquidator.I have heard the learned Advocate for the appellants and also perused the appeal papers.3. The learned Advocate for the appellants has raised two points to be decided in this appeal: (1) The Order passed by the DRT that the appellants should file their claim before the Official Liquidator after getting the Recovery Certificate is not proper; 4. M/s. Tamil Nadu Steels Ltd., which is the 1st respondent in the OA, went into liquidation and Official Liquidator was appointed. But, however, the appellants who are the consortium of Banks, have brought the action in OA-34/2001 for recovery of the amounts due to them by the 1st respondent. The DRT decreed the OA. Relying upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Allahabad ...
P.K. Narayana Kaimal Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Jun-22-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)BC104
2. The case of the appellant/6th defendant is that, he is not liable to pay any amount under the promissory note, as he was not at all in India on the date on which the promissory note and other connected documents said to have been executed on 9.1.1991. It is further stated in the General Body Meeting of the 1st defendant Company held on 10.1.1991.Resolution was said to have been passed to remove him from the Directorship, and he was removed. The appellant, therefore, contends that he is not at all liable to pay any amount to the respondent Bank.The written statement was filed to that effect by the appellant along with the other defendants 8 and 9.3. The case of the respondent Bank is that based upon the documents produced by the 1st defendant company, the suit was filed. Further case of the respondent. Bank is that the 6th defendant does not dispute his signature in the promissory note dated 9.1.1991, and also in other documents. The suit was filed on 6.1.1994, and therefore, the cl...
S.N. Aggarwal Vs. Canara Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Jun-14-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)BC112
1. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed as against the order dated 3.2.2006 in IA-48/2006 in OA-1250/1996 in DCP-1648, passed by the learned PO of DRT, Bangalore.2. The appellant moved the DRT by filing in application IA-48/2006 to transfer the DCP-1648 from recovery officer, DRT, Bangalore to Recovery Officer, DRT, Delhi, and the same was dismissed. Hence this appeal.I have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the 1st respondent.Admittedly, DCP was and is pending before the RO, DRT, Bangalore. The appellant, who is the 6th defendant, contended that he was suffering from paralytic stroke and had undergone heart surgery and, therefore, moved an application under Section 19(23), 22 and 29 of the RDDB and FI Act, 1993, for the transfer of the DCP from DRT, Bangalore to DRT, Delhi, and the same was dismissed.3. During the course of the argument of this appeal, it is pointed,out by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the DRT, Bangalore, while disposing of the transfer ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›