Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : I(2005)BC18
1. Bank filed suit OS No. 454/1995 in the Sub-Court, Coimbatore, in the year 1995 which came to be transferred to DRT, Chennai, upon the establishment of DRTs under the RDDB & FI Act, 1993 and again re-transferred to DRT, Coimbatore, and re-numbered as TA No. 1458/2002.2. This appeal is filed by the appellant/original applicant-Central Bank of India being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25.2.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of DRT, Coimbatore in IA-474/2003 in TA-1458/2002. By the impugned Order the learned Presiding Officer allowed the IA-474/2003 taken out by the defendants and disposed of finally the TA No. 1458/2002 in view of the direction given by him in the IA. Original Suit OS No. 454/1995 was filed by the Bank against four defendants for recovery of amount to the tune of Rs. 4,27,16,228.77 p. payable by the defendants to the applicant Bank for granting certain facilities to the defendants. The defendants executed various security documents on several...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : IV(2004)BC227
1. This Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/third party purchaser/auction purchaser M/s. Sapthagiri Pee Gee Fruits Processing (P) Ltd., being aggrieved by the common order dated 24.12.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of DRT-I, Chennai, on the Interim Application IA No. 750/2002. By the impugned order the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made by the auction purchaser in which a prayer was sought that the DRT should pass order directing the Recovery Officer/Bank that the amount of Rs. 2,91,255/- out of Rs. 75 lakhs deposited by the auction purchaser towards the sale proceeds, be paid directly to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as TNEB), Dharmapuri Circle, Dharmapuri. Apprehension was expressed that if these arrears of electricity were not paid, then the auction purchaser might face disconnection of electricity supply. Property belonging to the Certificate debtor M/s. Dharmapuri Steel Castings Ltd....
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : IV(2004)BC254
1. Mr. C.R. Prasanan, Advocate for the appellants is present, Mr.K.S.V. Prasad, Advocate for the 1st respondent Bank is present. Mr.Vijaya Kumar representing Advocate Mr. Srinath Sridevan for the 2nd and 3rd respondents is present. Mr. Dhanaraj representing Advocate Mr. R.Murari for 4th respondent is present.3. These appeals are filed by the appellants/original defendants D3 Mr.Arun. R. Fredrick, Managing Director and D5 Mrs. Minnie R. Fredrick, Director of the 2nd respondent company being aggrieved by the Common Order dated 2.7.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chennai in IA 530/2002, IA 531/2002 and IA 532/2002 in OA 17/1996. By the impugned common order, the learned Presiding Officer, DRT rejected all the three applications made by the appellants wherein prayers like giving direction to the Registrar of Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee, issuance of injunction order against co-defendants and co-directors, and appointment of Receiver with respe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : IV(2004)BC112
1. Original Suit (OS-295/1980) was filed in the Civil Court, Bangalore and the Civil Court passed the decree and final decree was also passed by the Civil Court. When Execution Petition (E.P. No. 60/1994) was filed before the Civil Court, the RDDB & FI Act, 1993 came into force and the case was transferred to DRT, Bangalore, and all further proceedings in pursuance of the Execution Petition were taken before the DRT in OA-547/1995.2. Counsel for the respondent borrower submits that no attachment of the movable property was effected and in the Sale proclamation, only immovable property is mentioned and there is no mention of any machineries in the sale proclamation and so the sale of the machineries is not proper and the sale is liable to be set aside. Counsel for the Bank submits that with regard to the sale of the machinery, the machineries are already hypothecated to the Bank and all those machineries have been seized by the Bank and they were kept with the Bank and since those ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : III(2004)BC269
1. The Original Application (OA) was allowed by the Tribunal by Order dated 13.1.1997. Recovery proceedings commenced. The 1st respondent filed MP-3/2001 before the Recovery Officer praying to close the recovery proceedings against immovable properties of the defaulter as barred by limitation and another petition MP-4/2001 was also filed before the Recovery Officer by M/s. V.M. Finance & Leasing Company against the property and the Recovery Officer rejected both the applications by Order dated 28.8.2002. Then the petitioner in MP-3/2001 preferred an appeal RA-1/2002 before Presiding Office and that was dismissed by the Tribunal by Order dated 4.10.2002. Again 1st respondent filed Review Petition MA-95/2002 before the Tribunal for reviewing its Order dated 4.10.2002 and the Review Petition was allowed by the Tribunal by Order dated 6.1.2003 and consequently RA-1/02 was also allowed. That Order dated 6.1.2003 is being now challenged by the Bank in this appeal.2. The Recovery Officer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : IV(2007)BC34
1. Aggrieved by the Order dated 5.1.2007, passed in IA-345/2006 in SA No. 6/2006, passed by the DRT-II at Chennai, this appeal has been filed.I have heard the learned Advocates for the appellant and the respondent.2. As against the measures taken under Section 13(4) of the SRFAESI Act, 2002, the appellant herein preferred an Appeal in SA No. 6/2006 before the DRT-II at Chennai, and the same is pending. That in the said application/appeal, the appellant had taken out an application in IA-345/2006, to direct the respondent Bank to issue a formal letter of acceptance and accept the balance payment as per the time-frame fixed by the Tribunal and to release the documents contending that at the time when the appellant sought for an interim stay of further proceedings, the DRT was pleased to order stay on 6.2.2006, on condition that an amount of Rs. 1.5 lakh to be deposited within 10 days and the balance amount of Rs. 5.5 lakh was to be paid within 15 days.The appellant paid Rs. 1.5 lakh to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : IV(2004)BC211
1. The appeal is directed against the Order dated 8.11.2002 passed by the PO, DRT. Bangalore, with regard to the dismissal of the OA claim as against D2 and D3 by the appellant Bank. D1 is the main borrower and D2 and D3 are the guarantors. According to the Counsel for the appellant Bank. D2 and D3 executed the Continuing guarantee and as per the Continuing guarantee they are liable for the Suit claim and their guarantee continues till the main borrower pays that amount and the Continuing guarantee shall come to end only after issue of notice by the appellant Bank as per the conditions provided in the Continuing guarantee and after issue of notice the appeal was filed in time and the Continuing guarantee was in force and as per the Continuing guarantee, D2 and D3 are liable for the Suit claim and the dismissal of the OA as against D2 and D3 is not sustainable.2. Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that the debt is not live and so decree cannot be passed as against D2 an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : IV(2004)BC109
1. Aggrieved against the order dated 31.1.2003 passed by the PO, DRT-I, Chennai, in dismissing the TA as against D4 and D5 after 13.8.1990 and awarding simple pendente lite and future interest @ 10% p.a., the Canara Bank has come forward with the appeal RA-34/2003. The defendants 4 and 5 have preferred the appeal RA-6/2004 challenging the final order passed against them. The PO, DRT has found that D4 and D5 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount due as on the date of their registration i.e. on 13.8.1990 and afterward they are not liable. The PO, DRT has found that D4 and D5 have resigned from the D1 Company from 13.8.1990 and so they cannot be held responsible to pay the loan liability of the Company which was availed after their resignation from the company.2. Arguments of the Canara Bank's Counsel already heard and the matter was again posted today for arguments on the defendants' side. No representation for the defendants. Counsel for the Bank alone present.Order is bei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : IV(2004)BC68
1. Aggrieved against the Order passed by the PO, DRT, in allowing the applications to condone the delay of 1657 days in filing the petition for setting aside the expert decree dated 26.2.1999, and staying recovery proceedings in the OA, the appellant Bank has come forward with these appeals. The PO, DRT, has found that no opportunity was given to the petitioners to cross-examine PW 1 nor their right to cross-examine the said witness was forfeited and the facts and circumstances set out by the petitioners in the affidavit filed by them and the time spent by the petitioners in trying to Settle the OA claim by addressing various letters to the respondent-Bank enable one to inter that the petitioners have been put to difficulties for no fault of theirs and that the delay caused in filing the MAIR-258/03 has been sufficiently explained and so the petition has to be allowed and the PO, DRT, has allowed the petition to condone the delay.2. Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : IV(2004)BC20
1. The appeal is directed as against the order passed in IA-842/2003 in OA-44712000. The applicant-Bank filed that IA seeking direction to be issued to the respondent for payment of the admitted amount. The PO, DRT, passed Order directing the respondent to pay the OA claim amount since the PO, DRT, has found that the defendant has categorically admitted the OA claim.2. On a perusal of the reply statement filed by the defendant it is seen that the defendant has admitted the liability only to the extent of Rs. 45.94 lakhs. It is also stated in that Reply statement that the defendant also has submitted a proposal for compromise to the applicant-Bank. It is nowhere stated in the Reply statement that the defendant has admitted the entire Suit claim amount. The defendant has categorically stated in para 6 of the Additional written statement that thereafter the defendant had paid an amount of Rs. 196.06 lakhs which has to be deducted from the outstanding amount of Rs. 242 lakhs and if the pa...
Tag this Judgment!