Drat Madras Court May 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.
Jaideep Kumar Amritraj and ors. Vs. S. Hanumantha Rao and anr.
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: May-25-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC139
1. The appellant Nos. 1 and 2 have purchased the subject property in the auction held on 6th June, 2003, and the same was sold to the appellant Nos. 3 to 5. All of them have jointly filed this appeal.2. The respondent No. 2-Bank filed Original Application No. 58/1995 for recovery of the amount due from the respondent No. 1 and the same was decreed on 12th July, 1996. Recovery Certificate was issued on 6th November. 1996, and the properly was brought to auction on 24th September, 1997, fixing the upset price as Rs. 25 lacs, and the auction was not held for want of bidders. Subsequently the reserve price was also reduced to Rs. 18 lacs and the properly was brought to auction and it was sold on 6th June, 2003, and the auction was also confirmed on 7th July, 2003, appellant Nos. 1 and 2 have paid the entire sale consideration on 26th June, 2003, and got the sale-deed and subsequently sold to the appellant Nos. 3 to 5 on 5th August, 2004. The respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition C.P.-3/...
Corporation Bank Vs. Vittaldas Bhandarkar
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: May-03-2007
Reported in: IV(2007)BC52
1. As against the measures taken under Section 13(4) of the SRFAESI Act, 2002 the respondent preferred a petition/appeal in ASA-23/2007 before the DRT (Karnataka) at Bangalore, wherein the respondent prayed for interim re-delivery of possession of the property and the same was allowed by the DRT by its order dated 31.1.2007. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed.I have heard the learned Advocates for the appellant and the respondent.2. A similar question arose in the case of The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank v. The DRAT, Chennai and Ors. W.P. No. 46413/2006 and MP-1/2006, wherein Division Bench of the High Court, Madras by its Order dated 7.12.2006, has held: "6. This Court is of the view that there was no occasion for the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal to order re-delivery of possession of the property in question without final determination of the issue" thereby meaning interim re-delivery is not permissible. This case also arose in respect of the proceedings taken...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›