Drat Madras Court February 2007 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.
Pradeep D. Kothari Vs. Uti Bank and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Feb-28-2007
Reported in: IV(2007)BC53
1. This appeal is directed as against the order dated 10.4.2006 passed by DRT-I at Chennai in SASR No. 159/2005.2. The appellant and his mother borrowed amount from the 1st respondent-Bank and they have also deposited original title deeds of the property with the Bank. The appellant has been making payments regularly. But, however, the 1st respondent Bank invoked the provisions of SRFAESI Act, 2002 and issued notice dated 16.6.2003 under Section 13(2) of the said Act. The respondent-Bank also issued a notice under Section 13(4) of the Act. It is stated that on 5.9.2005, a group of people calling themselves as enforcement agents attempted to enter into the property, and the same was thwarted by filing W.P. No. 29431/2005 before the High Court of Madras, in which, the High Court granted stay in W.P.M.P. No. 32237/2005 and the said writ petition was dismissed.Writ Appeal No. 2255/2005 was filed and the writ appeal also came to be disposed of, directing the appellant herein to exhaust the...
Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. Venus Knitting Industries and
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Feb-15-2007
Reported in: IV(2007)BC18
1. This regular appeal is directed as against the order dated 31.5.2006 in OA 35/2006 passed by DRT, Ernakulam.2. The appellant Bank filed the suit in OS-29/1991 before the Sub-Court, Kottarakara, Kerala for recovery of a sum of Rs. 85,609.75p in respect of Working Capital Term Loan Account and for Rs. 78,034/- due under Cash Credit Account, for a total sum of Rs. 1,63,643.75 together with interest @ 14% p.a. with quarterly rests from the defendants jointly and severally and charge on the schedule of properties. The suit was decreed ex parte on 30.1.1996 and the same was challenged by the respondents in CRP-511/2001, and the High Court of Kerala set aside the ex-parte decree by Order dated 7.7.2004 and the suit was restored to file. That thereafter, the suit was decreed on 20.12.2004, and the judgment reads as under: (A) Allowing the plaintiff to recover Rs. 85,609. 75 as shown in the memo of account 'A' with future interest at the rate of 14% per annum with quarterly rests. (B) Allow...
Canara Bank Vs. Mitre P. Mallar and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Feb-08-2007
Reported in: IV(2007)BC32
1. This Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred as against the order dated 6.11.2006 passed by DRT, Bangalore in LA. 563/2006 in OA 343/2005.I have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and also perused the appeal papers. The respondents were set ex parte on 31.1.2007.2. The appellant has filed an application under Section 19(13)(A) of the RDDB & FI Act, 1993 for attachment of the property before judgment, stating that the security already offered by the respondents was much less than the amounts due to the appellant Bank. The mortgaged property was a small building, and therefore, it would not fetch the amount to satisfy the appellant's claim in the OA. It is also stated that the appellant came to know from reliable sources, namely one of the customers of the Bank that the 1st respondent and her husband were trying to sell the property set out in the schedule to the petition thereunder, with a dishonest intention and with a view to defraud and delay the appellant, and if they do...
Savik Vijai Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Feb-07-2007
Reported in: IV(2007)BC14
1. This is an application filed under Section 22(2)(e) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 to recall the Order dated 7.11.2005 to bring the property for sale in public auction by the respondent Bank by fixing the upset price of Rs. 25 lakh, and the sale proceedings shall be deposited with the respondent Bank in an interest earning No-Lien Account, and that would, be treated as the balance of the pre-deposit under Section 21 of the RDDB & FI Act, 1993.I have heard the learned Advocates for the petitioner and the respondent Bank.2. It appears that the petitioner herein had challenged the Order dated 7.11.2005 by way of filing Writ Petition in WP No. 18327/2006 before the High Court of Karnataka and the High Court passed an Order on 21.12.2006 which runs as under: Even though the petitioner has prayed the stay of the proposed auction to be held on 3.1.2007 at 11.30 a.m. by the 1st respondent at DRT, Hudson Circle, Bangalore, we are not inclined ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›