Drat Madras Court December 2008 Judgments
M/S. R.S. Leather Exports Vs. Central Bank of India and Another
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Dec-11-2008
1. This Appeal is filed challenging the Order passed by the DRT-I, Chennai, in SA No.344/2007 on 11.7.2008. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this Appeal are as follows :- The Appellant firm availed financial assistance from the Respondent Bank on 4.3.2003 to the tune of Rs.15 lakhs and since the account became irregular, the Bank issued notice under Section-13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter called as SARFAESI Act) on 8.6.2006, to which the Appellant sent objections by way of reply on 30.8.2006. Though the Appellant made an offer for One Time Settlement (OTS) at Rs.8 lakhs, the Bank declined to accept the same and issued Possession Notice on 14.8.2007. Further, the Bank had not sent any reply regarding the objections sent by the Appellant and since the property brought for sale by the Bank was not also mortgaged in favour of the Bank, the Appellant filed the SA to set aside the Posses...
Tag this Judgment!Vellalar Cooperative Bank Vs. Indian Bank and Others
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Dec-10-2008
1. This Appeal is preferred by the 8th defendant in the OA challenging the impugned Order passed by the DRT-III, Chennai, in OA No.66/2007 on 31.7.2008. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this Appeal are briefly as follows :- The 2nd Respondent is a partnership firm having Respondents 3 to 7 as its partners and for the loan availed by the 2nd Respondent from the 1st Respondent Bank (hereinafter called as Bank), 8th Respondent stood as guarantor and created the equitable mortgage in favour of the Bank on 27.10.1994. The Appellant Bank was impleaded in the said OA as 8th defendant, as a necessary party. The same property mortgaged in favour of the 1st Respondent Bank had been again mortgaged in favour of the Appellant Bank on 21.6.1999, and therefore Ld. PO after hearing both sides and upon perusal of the records of the case passed the impugned Order against Respondents 3 and 8 for the sum as claimed in the OA and also to issue a Recovery Certificate for the same with subsequent inter...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›