Drat Madras Court September 2006 Judgments
Bhaskara Acharya Vs. Bank of India and anr.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Sep-13-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC99
1. This appeal is directed as against the order dated 23.3.2006 in ASA-31/2006 passed by the DRT, Bangalore.2. The appellant had borrowed a loan payable over a period of 180 months. Though the appellant had repaid some amount, he was not able to pay the instalments in time. Hence the Bank had issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SRFAESI Act on 15.11.2003, and taken possession of the property on 14.12.2004 and a sale notice was issued on 24.11.2005, and the sale was held on 13.2.2006, and sale certificate was also issued on 27.2.2006 As against the measures taken by the respondent Bank the appellant preferred an application/ appeal before the DRT, Bangalore, in ASA-31/2006 questioning the validity of the measures taken by the Authorised Officer and his application was dismissed aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed.I have heard the learned Advocates for the appellant and the respondent.3. The learned Advocate for the appellant has raised the following points in...
Tag this Judgment!N. Chandran Vs. State Bank of India and anr.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Sep-11-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC104
1. The Miscellaneous Appeal is directed as against the order dated 17.5.2006 passed by the DRT-II at Chennai.2. The learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the 1st respondent Bank brought the subject item of the property along with other property for sale under the SRFAESI Act in the auction fixed on 15.3.2006, and the appellant expressed his willingness to participate in the auction and also given a letter to the Authorised Officer of the respondent Bank on 14.3.2006, along with a Demand Draft dated 14.3.2006, for a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- being 10% of the E.M.D. in respect of Item-1 of the property alone. Item-1 of the property was sold in the auction held on 15.3.2006, and the appellant herein was the highest bidder of the property for a sum of Rs. 74,87,000/- and had paid Rs. 12,21,750/- by way of Demand Draft on 15.3.2006 towards the balance of the E.M.D. and the entire sale consideration was paid on 12.4.2006, and the same was also duly acknowledged by the 1st respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Zeron Electronics (P) Ltd. and Vs. State Bank of India
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Sep-08-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC128
1. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the Order dated 24.3.2006 passed in MA-134/2003 I OA-1639/ 1998 by the DRT-I at Chennai. The defendants in the OA are the appellants. The OA filed by the respondent Bank was decreed ex parte on 13.7.1999. The defendants 1, 2 and 4 have filed an application to set aside the ex parte order and also to condone the delay in filing the appeal and for stay. The application to condone the delay in MA 134/2003 came to be dismissed by the DRT by its order dated 24.3.2006, and the same is under challenge in this Appeal.2. Before this Tribunal, S.R. Baskaran, the 2nd defendant in the OA, filed the Affidavit for himself and on behalf of other defendants 1 and 4, wherein he has stated that they were carrying on business at No.69/9, Aryagowda Road, West Mambalam, Chennai, and they were not served with any summons from the Tribunal, but however, they were served with the notice from the Bank through their Advocate to the correct address at No. 69/9, A...
Tag this Judgment!Hyderabad Lamps Ltd. Vs. Icici Bank Ltd. and anr.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Sep-07-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC86
1. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed as against the order dated 6.7.2006 passed in RA-12/2005 in MP-29/2005 in RP-128/2004 in OA-303/2002, by the DRT, Hyderabad.2. The appellant is the borrower and the OA filed by the respondent Bank was decreed on 18.5.2004. Pursuant to the same, the properties of the appellant was also brought to sale on 7.6.2005 and it was also sold on the same day. As against the same, the appellant preferred RP-128/2004 questioning the validity of the auction and the same was dismissed. As against the same, the appellant also preferred RA before the DRT and the same was also dismissed by order dated 6.1.2006.Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed.3. The learned Advocate for the appellant has raised several grounds in the memorandum of appeal and during the course of the argument, he has confined to the ground that the properties were not sold for a proper price and that the auction purchaser did not pay the balance of the sale consideration within ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›