Drat Madras Court June 2008 Judgments
K. Ramachandra Vs. State Bank of India, Rehabilitation and Recovery Br ...
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Jun-30-2008
1. The Appellant has instituted this Appeal challenging the Order passed by the DRT at Bangalore, in AOR-6/2006 in OA-256/2000 on 14.9.2006. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this Appeal may be set out briefly as under :- The Appellant is a 3rd party Agreement holder and he filed the Application before the Recovery Officer, DRT at Bangalore, on the basis of the registered Agreement for Sale dated 25.11.2003 executed by one Smt. Laxmi Agarwal, raising objections in confirming the sale of the Schedule property in the recovery proceedings DCP-2549 in OA-256/2000 and the same was dismissed on 10.2.2005. Aggrieved by the Order of the Recovery Officer, he preferred the Appeal in AOR-6/2006 before the DRT at Bangalore, on the ground that the Recovery Officer dismissed the same over-ruling his objections and confirmed the sale held by him in DCP-2549 in OA-256/2000. Ld. PO after hearing both sides and upon perusal of the records of the case, dismissed the said Appeal with exemplary costs a...
Tag this Judgment!V. Sridhar Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Rep. by Its Branch Manager and An ...
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Jun-03-2008
1. This Appeal is filed challenging the impugned Order passed by the DRT, Visakhapatnam, in Appeal No.1/2004 in RP No.193/2002 in OA-820/1999 on 23.4.2007. 2. The Appellant filed an Application before the DRT to refund Rs.8,35,650/- together with interest at 17.5% p.a. from 10.1.2003 till the date of payment on the ground that the said amount was deposited by him in the said recovery proceedings before the Recovery Officer towards 25% of the bid amount and that after he was informed about the tenancy rights over the Schedule property as the tenant filed a Civil Suit in OS-2674/2002 on the file of 1st Junior Civil Judge at Vijayawada, he did not deposit the balance amount towards the auction price. Hence he sought for refund of the said amount with interest. Ld. PO after hearing both sides dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellant herein. Hence the Appeal. 3. Heard both sides. Mr. R. Murari, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted the following in his argument advanced on the side...
Tag this Judgment!ing Vysya Bank, Branch at Hubli, Dharwar District. Vs. Vivek Sreepad M ...
Court: DRAT Madras
Decided on: Jun-02-2008
1. The Appellant Bank has preferred this Appeal only in relation to certain observation made by the DRT in the impugned Order dated 31.8.2006, passed in OA-179/2005 on the file of DRT, Bangalore. 2. The Appellant herein filed the said OA against the Respondent for recovery of Rs.43,46,720/- being the balance as on 9.3.2005 with unpaid interest of Rs.83,03,177/- i.e. totally a sum of Rs.1,26,49,897/- together with future interest @ 20.50% p.a. compounded with quarterly rests. The Ld. PO having heard both sides and upon perusal of the records of the case, allowed the said Application partly for a sum of Rs.63,33,720/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. with early rests from 31.12.2001 till the date of realisation with proportionate costs. Since the Ld. PO made the impugned remarks while passing the Order in Para-4, the Appellant has filed this Appeal to expunge the same. 3. Heard both sides. In the above circumstances, the point for consideration is whether the observation made by the DRT in ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›