Court : DRAT Madras
1. The above SARFAESI Application has been filed on 23.09.2011 by the Applicant under Section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act-2002 (Shortly called ‘the Act’) to set aside the Possession Notice dated 16.9.2011 issued under Section 13(4) of the Act by the Respondents. 2. The case of the Applicant in brief is as follows:- 2.1 Dr. AR. Pradeep Kumar (borrower) availed Term Loan of Rs.325 Lakhs on 3.11.2009 from the Respondent Bank to purchase land and building and for construction thereon, and also for the purchase of some additional equipment to upgrade the existing clinic into a technical equipped modern dental cline. The Applicant guaranteed the aid loan and executed necessary documents in favour of the Respondent Bank. The borrower executed necessary documents for availing the loan and sufficiently secured the loan by creating charges over the immovable and movable properties. After availing the loan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
1. This Appeal is preferred by the Appellant challenging the impugned Order passed by the DRT, Hyderabad, in IA No.635/2008 in SA No.164/2008 on 4.8.2008. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this Appeal may be set out briefly as under :- The Appellant Bank had initiated measures under Sections-13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Secured Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter called as SARFAESI Act) against the Respondents for recovery of the outstanding liability of Rs.4,66,789/- with cost and interest as the Respondent failed to repay the loan availed from the Bank. Hence the Respondent filed the Application in SA No.164/2008 on the file of the DRT, challenging the action taken by the Appellant Bank. While the said proceedings was pending, the Respondent filed the Application in IA No.635/2008 seeking re-delivery of the Schedule property, which had been taken possession by the Appellant Bank. The Appellant filed a detailed Counter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
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!Court : DRAT Madras
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!Court : DRAT Madras
1. The Appellant has preferred this Appeal challenging the Order passed by the DRT, Bangalore, in AOR-7/2007 in OA-1250/1996, on 16.10.2007. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this Appeal may be set out briefly as under :- The 1st Respondent Bank instituted proceedings in OA-1250/1996 and obtained a Recovery Certificate against the Appellant and others. Further in pursuance of the Recovery Certificate, the Recovery Officer, DRT, Bangalore, proceeded to attach the property of the Appellant, who was arrayed as Certificate Debtor No.6 in DCP No.1648 on the file of the Recovery Officer, DRT, Bangalore, and the property sought to be attached is a residential house bearing Door No.C-39, Friends Colony East, New Delhi. The Appellant was therefore, constrained to file an Application before the Recovery Officer claiming exemption under Section-60(1) (ccc) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) as amended as per Section-2 of the Union Territories Laws (Act 1950) by the Union Government under a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
1. This Appeal is preferred by the Appellant Banks challenging the impugned Order passed by the DRT, Bangalore, in OA-939/1997 dated 31.1.2007, with regard to the personal liability of the Respondents 2, and 7 to 9 herein. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this Appeal are as follows :- The 1st Respondent is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and the Respondents 2, and 7 to 9 are its Directors. The Appellants sanctioned credit facilities on Consortium basis to the 1st Respondent Company (hereinafter called as the Company) and towards Export Packing Credit, the 1st Appellant sanctioned Rs.325 lakhs and the 2nd Appellant sanctioned Rs.200 lakhs. In respect of Foreign Bill Discounting Limit, the 1st Appellant sanctioned Rs.150 lakhs and the limit sanctioned by the 2nd Appellant was Rs.125 lakhs. Regarding the Bank Guarantee, the limit sanctioned by the 1st Appellant was Rs.30 lakhs, and the limit sanctioned by the 2nd Appellant was Rs.20 lakhs. The Respondents 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
1. The Appellant/Third party has filed this Appeal challenging the impugned Order passed by the DRT-III, Chennai, in SA-178/2007 on 10.1.2008. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this Appeal may be set out briefly as under :- The Respondent Bank sanctioned the loan facilities by way of Overdraft and OCC limit to M/s. Lakshmi Vilas Silks Ltd. against collateral security of movable properties for which equitable mortgage of land and building bearing Door Nos.186C (New No.181) and 186B (New No.180) situated at Gandhi Road, Kanchipuram, was also created in favour of the Bank by the borrower. The Directors of the principal borrowers stood as guarantors for the due repayment of the loan. Since the account was out of order, the Bank invoked the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter called as SARFAESI Act) and issued the demand notice dated 26.12.2002, under Section-13(2) in the said Act and also to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
1. This Appeal is filed by the Appellant/3rd Defendant challenging the Order passed by the DRT-II, Chennai in OA-2410/2001 dated 25.5.2007. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this Appeal are briefly as under :- The Respondent Bank filed the said OA under Section-19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter called as the RDDBandFI Act) against the defendants 1 to 3 for recovery of Rs.96,33,180.63p with future interest @ 17% p.a. with quarterly rests from the date of Application till the date of realisation. The 3rd defendant is the Appellant herein. The case of the Respondent is that the 1st defendant, proprietary concern represented by the 2nd defendant availed the overdraft facility and that the Appellant herein guaranteed the loan and mortgaged the Schedule properties. The Appellant filed a reply statement denying the liability on the ground that she had neither created the mortgage in favour of the Respondent Bank nor signed in any of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
1. This Appeal is preferred challenging the legality of the Order passed by the DRT, Bangalore, in MA-12/2004 in OA-553/2001 dated 29.8.2007. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this Appeal are briefly as under :- The 1st Respondent financial institution filed the said OA against the Appellants herein and the same was decreed on 31.12.2002. The Appellants filed the said MA to set aside the Order passed in the said OA. The Respondent institution filed the objections resisting the Application filed by the Appellants on various grounds. Ld. PO after hearing both sides on the basis of the records of the case dismissed the Application filed by the Appellants with cost. Hence the Appeal. 3. Heard Mr. M. Veerabhadraiah, Ld. Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. M.P. Balasubramaniyam, Ld. Counsel for the 1st Respondent. 4. The following contentions have been raised by the Ld. Counsel in support of the Appellants :- It is true that the Appellants borrowed Rs.25 lakhs from the 1st Respondent fina...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Common Order 1. The Appellant has preferred these Appeals challenging the Orders passed by the DRT, Bangalore, in AOR-1/2006 dated 30.3.2007 and AOR-17/2005 dated 17.5.2007. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties may be referred to hereunder as they are arrayed in Appeal MA-233/2007. 3. The facts leading to the filing of these Appeals may be set out as under :- The 1st Respondent Bank filed the Applications under Section-19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter called as RDDBandFI Act) before the DRT in OA Nos.171/2001, 172/2001 and 173/2001 against the Respondents 2 to 6 herein for recovery of Rs.35,20,930.18p, Rs.25,22,938.44p and Rs.13,00,185.88p respectively with future interest at 16% p.a. from the date of Application till realisation with quarterly rests and also for sale of the pledged and hypothecated properties described under A, B and C Schedule and for costs. After hearing both sides on merits, OAs were ordered as prayed...
Tag this Judgment!