Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : II(2006)BC182
1. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 3.2.2005 passed by the DRT (Andhra Pradesh & Karnataka) at Bangalore in IA-727/2004 in OA-251/1998.2. Admittedly, the OA was decreed in favour of the respondent Bank as early as on 31.1.2002. That thereafter, the respondent Bank filed an application for amendment of the Schedule 'C' in the OA, in the year 2004, stating that the 2nd defendant mortgaged the property described in the Schedule 'C' of the OA and by mistake the 'C' Schedule property was described as HAL II Stage instead of HAL III Stage and it is a typographical error, and the same was allowed by DRT only on the ground that the amendment is permissible even after the disposal of the OA or even the second Appeal. The said order is under challenge in this appeal.3. The learned Advocate for the appellant submits that he never mortgaged the property as claimed by the respondent Bank and the amendments sought for is not only belated but also not sustainable in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : IV(2006)BC7
1. The appellant is an Industrial Company against whom the respondent Bank filed OA No. 355/2002 on the file of DRT, Ernakulam. Before the DRT, the appellant filed an application IA-671/2003 contending that the appellant had already been declared as a sick industrial company by the BIFR (Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction). Under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, as early as on 12.11.1999 and, therefore, as per Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, no suit or other proceedings will lie against the appellant company and guarantors, without the leave of the BIFR and prayed for the dismissal of the OA but, however, the said application was filed under Section 19(25) of the RDDB&FI Act, 1993. The DRT dismissed the said petition on the ground that there is no merit in the said IA in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in , Kailash Nath Agarwal and Ors., Appellants v. Prades...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : IV(2005)BC136
1. Appellants are the defendants 4, 5 and 7 in the OA. Aggrieved by the Order dated 18.9.2003 in OA-364/1996 passed by the DRT, Bangalore, these defendants have preferred the appeal.The 1st respondent, which is the plaintiff filed the Suit before the City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in OS No. 3330/1989, for a decree against the defendants 1 to 7 for a sum of Rs. 15,27,605.58p. together with future and current interest @ 19.5% per annum towards Cash Credit Hypothecation loan and @ 15.5% p.a. towards the Term Loan from the date of the Suit till realisation and for costs.The case of the plaintiff is that defendants 2 and 3 are the partners of the 1st defendant Company. Defendants 2 and 3 had availed Cash Credit Hypothecation loan for the 1st defendant, to the extent of Rs. 3 lakhs on 25.2.1983 and executed Demand Promissory Note dated 25.2.1983 and also executed letter of lien, set off and also continuing security letter. They have also executed a letter of partnership dated 25.2.1983, in fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : I(2006)BC194
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.11.2003, passed by the DRT at Bangalore, in OA No. 382/1998, the 6th defendant alone has preferred this appeal, 2. M/s. Movers Ltd., the 1st defendant in the OA, had the benefit of various credit facilities by way of Cash Credit Open Loan, Overdraft against Supply Bills and three Term Loans in respect of which, it had executed Promissory Notes, Letter of Continuity and also Hypothecation Agreements in respect of stocks and trade and machinery and also the letter of acknowledgement of debts. Defendants 2 to 7, who were the Directors of the said company at the relevant point of time stood surety for repayment of the amounts due, for which they have executed letters of continuing guarantee to remain in force till the entire amounts due by the 1st defendant are paid and also acknowledgement of debt and confirmation of balance executed by the 1st defendant, are binding and enforceable against the defendants 2 to 7. That in respect of the loans availed by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : III(2005)BC196
1. The appellant Bank filed the Original Application No. 162/2000 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,13,254.30p under the Cash Credit Account together with interest @ 19.89% p.a. with quarterly rests from the defendants jointly and severally and by sale of 'A' to 'D' schedule properties. The 1st defendant was the principal borrower and the 2nd defendant was the guarantor. Though the 2nd defendant denied the execution of the guarantee agreement in Exh. A11, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the 2nd defendant did execute the guarantee agreement Exh.A11 and rejected the contentions otherwise as contended by the 2nd defendant. But, however, on the question that the 2nd defendant did not execute the guarantee agreement simultaneously when the 1st defendant borrowed the amount and therefore the guarantee agreement (Exh. A11) is not supported by consideration and thereby came to the conclusion that the 2nd defendant, the guarantor is not liable, and dismissed the OA as against the 2nd de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : III(2005)BC181
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.1.2005 passed by the DRT, Ernakulam, in IA-2746/2004 in OA 59/2003.2. The respondent Bank filed the OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,27,23,825-23 p as on 6.1.2003 together with interest @ 19% p.a. with quarterly rests and other charges, costs and the same is pending adjudication. During the pendency of the OA, the appellant has leased out the property and, therefore, the respondent Bank filed an application IA-1766/ 2004 for the appointment of Receiver in respect of the 'A' Schedule hypothecated stock and 'B' Schedule hypothecated plant and machinery and the DRT, by its order dated 12.10.2004 appointed a Receiver to take inventory of 'A' Schedule hypothecated stocks and 'B' Schedule hypothecated plant and machinery, and to monitor the functioning of the appellant firm in respect of those properties.Subsequently, the respondent Bank filed an application IA-2746/2004 on the basis of the report dated 6.12.2004 filed by the Advoca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : III(2005)BC190
1.The 4th defendant in OA No. 8597 1999, on the file of DRT, Bangalore, is the appellant.2. The respondent Bank advanced three types of loan (1) Overdraft Facility, (2) Foreign Discounting of Bills/Foreign Bills of Exchange, and (3) Term Loan, to the Shibumi Computer Systems Pvt. Ltd., who is the respondent in the OA and 2nd respondert in this Appeal. As the company had defaulted in payment, the respondent Bank filed the OA in which defendants 1,2,3 and 5, remained ex pane and 4th defendant namely, the appellant herein, alone contested the matter and the OA was decreed as prayed for against all the defendants including the appellant herein. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant had preferred this appeal.Heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the 1st respondent Bank.3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred in this appeal as they have been arrayed in the OA.4. The learned Advocate for the appellant would submit that the 1st defendant company is a company ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : III(2005)BC193
1. The respondent Bank filed an application in IA No. 436/2001 to implead the appellant herein in TA-256/2001, and the same was allowed by the DRT-II, Chennai, by its order dated 14.12.2004. Aggrieved by the same, the proposed party preferred this appeal.The 1st respondent's husband in the TA before the DRT-II, namely, late V.C. Soundarapandian, was an employee of the respondent Bank herein.During the course of his employment, it is stated, that he had committed several misdeeds and also misappropriated the Bank's amount for which the respondent Bank had instituted a suit in OS-307/1992 before the Sub-Court, Tuticorin, and the same has been now transferred and pending in TA-256/2001 before the DRT-II at Chennai. That apart, the deceased V.C. Soundarapandian availed loan for which he had created mortgage by deposit of title deeds and as he had committed default in discharging the mortgage, the respondent Bank filed the Suit in OS-332/1994, before the Civil Court, Tuticorin, and when th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : IV(2005)BC154
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated January 19, 2005, passed in Securitisation Appeal No. 19 of 2004, by the DRT-I, Chennai.2. The first respondent-bank, namely, ICICI Bank, granted financial assistance to the second respondent for which the appellant herein had executed corporate guarantee in favour of the first respondent-bank. As the second respondent has not fulfilled its obligation, the first respondent issued a notice to the second respondent on November 20, 2002, under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), calling upon the second respondent to pay the amount due within 60 days from the date of the notice failing which the bank is at liberty to take recourse in accordance with law and the said action was challenged by the second respondent before the DRT-II, Chennai, in Securitisation Appeal No. 19 of 2004, and DRT by its order dated January ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : III(2005)BC184
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.3.2005, passed by the DRT, Bangalore, in IR-378/2001 in OA-687/1999.2. The learned Advocate for the appellant Bank submitted that the respondents remained ex parte in the OA filed by the appellants and, therefore, they have filed an application to set aside the ex parte order and the same is pending in IR-378/2001, and pending disposal of that application, there was a compromise between the appellant Bank and the respondents and they have also arrived at One Time Settlement (OTS). But in the meanwhile, on the strength of the ex parte order passed in the OA, the recovery certificate was issued and the recovery officer proceeded with the matter. That in order avoid to avoid the sale proceedings by the recovery officer, the respondents herein have filed two Interim Applications in IA No. 253/2005 and IA No. 254/2005.All these applications were taken together along with IR-378/2001, and the DRT passed a common order accepting the compr...
Tag this Judgment!