Drat Madras Court July 2006 Judgments
Kothari Industrial Corporation Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and anr.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Jul-21-2006
Reported in: 2(2007)BC26
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. filed an application before the D.R.T. to substitute themselves as applicant in the Original Application in the place of existing applicant, viz. I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd. and the same was allowed by the D.R.T. by order dated 2nd February, 2006. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant, who is the respondent No. 1 in the Original Application has preferred this miscellaneous appeal.I have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the respondents and also perused the appeal papers.1. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., the respondent No. 1 herein, in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, has stated that the debt due to the respondent No. 2, namely I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd. from the appellant has been assigned to them, which was confirmed by the agreement dated 20th April, 2005 and as per the said agreement, the respondent No. 1 has become the full and absolute owner and the only person legally entitled to receive the debt due from the appellant with effect from 31st Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. Vs. Raj Kumar Gupta
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Jul-12-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC33
1.This regular appeal has been filed as against the order dated 23rd September, 2005 passed in Original Application No. 648 of 1999 by D.R.T.-I, Chennai.2. The" Original Application filed by the appellant for the recovery of the amounts was decreed as prayed for. But, however, it was held that, the responsibility of the defendant No. 6, being a guarantor, was only to the extent of the value of the portion/share of the schedule mortgage property in his possession, and he is not personally liable, and the said finding is under challenge in this appeal.3. The defendant No. 1-company is a partnership firm represented by its partners defendant Nos. 2 to 5 and they have availed certain loan facilities from the appellant Bank, for which defendant Nos. 4 to 6 stood as guarantors and they have executed personal guarantee in favour of the applicant Bank, and they have also executed mortgage extension letter by creating a valid equitable mortgage in favour of the appellant Bank in respect of the...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of Travancore Vs. Spark Textiles and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC62
1. The appellant Bank filed the Original Application against 11 defendants and the same was decreed against the defendant Nos. 1 to 7 and 11 and the claim against the defendant Nos. 8. 9 and 10 was dismissed. As against the same, the Bank has preferred this appeal.2. The case of the appellant Bank is that the defendant No. 1 is partnership firm and defendant Nos. 2 to 6 are its partners. At the request of 1st defendant, the appellant Bank sanctioned term loan for a limit of Rs. 45 lacs against the security of hypothecation of factory land and building, and machinery and guarantee of defendant Nos. 2 to 11 and mortgage of immovable properties of defendant Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10. The defendant Nos. 2 to 5 and 7 to 10 created the mortgage against their immovable properties described in item Nos. 1 to 6 by depositing their title deeds with the applicant-Bank 19th March, 1994. As the defendant No. 1 firm committed default in payment of the amount, the appellant Bank after the issu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›