Drat Madras Court March 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.
M. Kanthimathinathan and ors. Vs. Central Bank of India
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Mar-22-2007
Reported in: IV(2007)BC45
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 5.10.2006 in IA-84/2006 in TA-615/2001, passed by the DRT-2, Chennai, the defendants 2 to 4 have filed this Appeal.2. The learned Advocates for the appellants states that there was One Time Settlement (OTS) in the year 2001, and the appellants have settled the entire amount by 2.8.2004. The appellants also filed certain documents along with the petition filed before the DRT to prove the settlement.3. The respondent Bank also admitted the OTS, but had stated that the appellant have not paid the amount in time and, therefore, the proposal was not acted upon and appellants are not entitled to the benefit of the OTS.4. The Tribunal was of the view that the OTS is an affair between the borrower and the Bank, and the Tribunal has no role to play. I am unable to subscribe my view to the same. The Tribunal, though it does not constitute a Court in the technical sense, it exercises judicial powers and decides matter brought before it judicial or quasi-judicial.I...
Canara Bank Vs. T. Bhimaraj
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Mar-20-2007
Reported in: IV(2007)BC42
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.9.2006, in IA-621/2006 in DCP-1656/2006 in OA-562/1998, passed by the DRT, Bangalore, the applicant Bank has preferred this appeal.I have heard the learned Advocates for the appellant and the respondent.2. OA filed by the respondent had already been decreed and recovery certificate was also issued. Pursuant to the same, the mortgaged property was attached by order dated 20.11.2003, and the property, was brought to auction on 10.2.2004, 15.6.2004,27.7.2005, and on 26.4.2006.That in the meanwhile, the appellant Bank came to know that the certificate debtors 2 and 3 have sold the mortgaged property in utter violation of the prohibitory order of attachment. Hence, the appellant filed the application stating that the respondent has done, so with an intention to delay the recovery of the amount due to the appellant Bank. Even after selling the mortgaged/attached property, the respondent has not chosen to pay or deposit the sale proceeds. Without disclosing...
Darmesh Madhusoodan Thakkar Vs. Union Bank of India and ors.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Mar-19-2007
Reported in: IV(2007)BC39
1. This is an application to condone the delay of 1652 days in filing the appeal.I have heard the learned Advocates for the petitioner and the 1st respondent Bank.2. The petitioner in the affidavit has stated that he was a minor at the time when he was admitted in the 1st defendant's Firm as a partner, and on attaining majority, the petitioner did not want to continue as a partner, and given a letter on 31.3.1993, to the 1st defendant firm, and thereupon, the partnership firm was reconstituted from 1.4.1993. It is also stated that the Managing Partner of the 1st defendant Firm has given a letter on 8.5.1993, that the petitioner/appellant ceased to be the partner of the 1st defendant firm. The petitioner/appellant further stated that the entire proceedings before the DRT was conducted by his father for and on his behalf, and even the written statement was singed by him while he was out of station. The appellant, therefore, pleads ignorance of the proceedings. The petitioner further sta...
Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. Sadanandan, K.V.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Mar-01-2007
Reported in: IV(2007)BC16
1. The respondent filed Claim Petition in IA-2806/2004 before the Recovery Officer-1, of DRT, Ernakulam, and the same was allowed on 20.6.2005. As against the same, the appellant Bank filed Appeal No.18/2005 before the DRT, Ernakulam, and there was a delay in filing the said Appeal and a separate application IA 1510/2005 was filed to condone the delay and the same came to be dismissed by order dated 18.8.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the Bank has preferred this Appeal.I have heard the learned Advocates for the appellant and the respondent.2. The application filed by the appellant to condone the delay in filing appeal under Section 30(1) of the RDDB Act, 1993, was dismissed by the DRT on the ground that the provisions of the Limitation Act, are not applicable to the Tribunal except for an application filed under Section 19 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993. The reason given by the Tribunal is, that the Tribunal is not a Court and it was constituted under Section 3(1) of the Act, and therefore, th...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›