Drat Madras Court August 2006 Judgments
S. Sri Natarajan Vs. Indian Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Aug-30-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC114
1. This Miscellaneous appeal is directed as against the interim order dated 28.4.2006 in SA-26/2006 passed by DRT-II at Chennai.2. The appellant filed SA-26-2006 before the DRT contending that he had purchased undivided share of 300 sq. ft. from one T. Velayudham, which is bearing Flat No. FI and he is in possession of same. The appellant has mentioned that he has not taken any loan from the respondent Bank nor he has mortgaged his property, and as such, he is a third party to the measures taken by the respondent Bank. As the property was brought to sale by public auction, to be held on 29.4.2006, the learned Presiding Officer without going into the merits of the case had directed the appellant herein to deposit a sum of Rs. 6 lakh directly to the respondent Bank within 4 weeks from the dale of order. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred this appeal.I have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the respondent Bank.3. The case of the appellant is consistent that...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. Rac Package Industries and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Aug-28-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)BC212
1. This regular appeal has been filed as against the order dated 14.11.2005 in IA-371/2005 in OA-394/2002 on the file of DRT-II, Chennai.2. The appellant Bank filed the OA against five respondents for recovery of a sum of Rs. 28,74,474.87p. together with interest at the rate of 12.5% p.a. with quarterly rests. The defendants entered appearance and took time for filing reply statement. At that stage, the defendants have approached the applicant Bank for a settlement and also given a proposal. The defendants have agreed to pay Rs. 21.02 lakh out of Rs. 28.74 lakh and agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on or before 30.9.2004 and the remaining amount on or before 28.8.2005 with Bank's PLR simple rate of interest and failure to comply with the above said compromise, the applicant Bank is at liberty to claim the entire amount as claimed in the OA.3. The matter was referred to the Lok Adalat held by the Tribunal on 28.8.2004, and the Lok Adalat passed an award on 28.8.2004, which runs as un...
Tag this Judgment!T.K.S. Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Aug-14-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)BC181
1. The appellant herein, who is the 6th defendant in the OA-382/2003 had taken out an Application in IA-475/ 2005 for the return of the documents in the pending OA and the same came to be dismissed by the DRT, Coimbatore, by its Order dated 5.10.2005. Aggrieved by the same, this Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed.I have heard the learned Advocate for the appellants and the respondent.2. The case of the appellants is that they have deposited certain documents with Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. with an intention to create equitable mortgage and the said Bank filed TA-1320/2002, and their claim was settled out of Court. When the appellants applied for the return of the documents before the Tribunal, that application was dismissed on the ground that no documents were available with the Tribunal. Subsequently, the Lakshmi Vilas Bank, respondent herein, filed OA-382/ 2003 and the same is pending. That in the OA, the appellants had taken out an application for the return of the documents co...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of Mysore Vs. Devakar Silk Weaving Factory and
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Aug-03-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)BC215
The appellant is the applicant in OA-41/1999 on the file of DRT, Bangalore. OA was filed for the recovery of the amount from the defendants, holding them personally liable to pay the amount, and also for the sale of Schedule I hypothecated stocks, Schedule II pledged machineries, Schedules III and V mortgaged properties, for the realisation of the debt. The Tribunal by its Order dated 15.10.2004, allowed the OA, holding that the defendants 1 to 5 personally liable to pay the amount and sale of Schedules I and II hypothecated properties alone, and the reliefs sought for the sale of Schedules III and V immovable properties, was disallowed, Aggrieved by the same, the applicant Bank has preferred this appeal.I have heard the learned Advocates for the appellant Bank and the respondents.1. The learned Advocate for the appellant Bank would submit that the execution of the mortgage by deposit of title deeds by the defendants in respect of Schedules III and V immovable properties was accepted ...
Tag this Judgment!N.S. Suhas and anr. Vs. Canara Bank
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Aug-02-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)BC201
1. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed as against the order dated 12.8.2005, made in IA-19/2004 in OA-440/2002 by the DRT at Bangalore.The appellants are the defendants in the OA. They have filed an application to record the compromise entered into between the appellants and the respondent Bank and to treat the OA as settled out of Court, and the said petition was dismissed by the DRT by order dated 12.8.2005. Hence this appeal.2. During the pendency of the OA, the 2nd defendant filed an application to record the settlement entered into between him and the Bank and to dismiss the OA. The 2nd appellant was a registered proprietor of the trade mark 'Eenadu' and the same was owned by him.That in order to discharge the amount payable to the respondent Bank, it was suggested by the Bank that the trade mark 'Eenadu' shall be assigned to it so that it can wipe out the debt due to them and accordingly the Deed of Assignment was entered into on the 8th day of October, 2003. As per the agreem...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›