Court : DRAT Madras
This appeal is preferred by the Appellant Bank challenging the impugned Order passed by the DRT, Bangalore in ASA-16/2006 on 12.2.2008. 2. The facts of the case leading to the filing of this Appeal may be set out briefly as under: The Appellant Bank initiated the proceedings under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein after called as SARFAESI Act) against the 1st respondent and his guarantors for recovery of loan amount of Rs.4,92,000/-, availed by the 1st respondent. Consequently, auction was conducted on 10.1.2006 and the secured asset was sold on the same day to the 2nd and 3rd Respondents herein. The said sale was confirmed and sale certificate also issued by the Appellant Bank. The 1st Respondent resisted the proceedings by filing the Appeal before the DRT, Bangalore, challenging the action initiated by the Appellant Bank, on various grounds. The Appellant Bank and the auction purchasers (i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
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!Court : DRAT Madras
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!Court : DRAT Madras
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!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : I(2008)BC159
1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the legality of the order passed by the DRT, Bangalore on 14.2.2007 in MA-50/2004.2. The appellant and the 3rd respondent herein have filed the application in MA-50/2004 on the file of DRT. Bangalore to set aside the ex parte order passed against them in OA-312/2002. The 1st respondent Bank filed its objections in the said proceedings. After hearing both sides, the learned Presiding Officer dismissed the application filed by the appellant and the 3rd respondent herein.Hence, the appeal.3. The 1st respondent Bank has filed the OA-312/2002 against the appellant and the respondents 2 and 3 herein for recovery of Rs. 46,97,120/- with future interest at 16% p.a. from the date of application till the date of realization and also for sale of the hypothecated properties under Schedules A and C and for sale of the mortgaged properties under Schedules B and D. In the said proceedings, the appellant herein, who was arrayed as 2nd defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : I(2008)BC139
1. The appellant Nos. 1 and 2 have purchased the subject property in the auction held on 6th June, 2003, and the same was sold to the appellant Nos. 3 to 5. All of them have jointly filed this appeal.2. The respondent No. 2-Bank filed Original Application No. 58/1995 for recovery of the amount due from the respondent No. 1 and the same was decreed on 12th July, 1996. Recovery Certificate was issued on 6th November. 1996, and the properly was brought to auction on 24th September, 1997, fixing the upset price as Rs. 25 lacs, and the auction was not held for want of bidders. Subsequently the reserve price was also reduced to Rs. 18 lacs and the properly was brought to auction and it was sold on 6th June, 2003, and the auction was also confirmed on 7th July, 2003, appellant Nos. 1 and 2 have paid the entire sale consideration on 26th June, 2003, and got the sale-deed and subsequently sold to the appellant Nos. 3 to 5 on 5th August, 2004. The respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition C.P.-3/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : IV(2007)BC52
1. As against the measures taken under Section 13(4) of the SRFAESI Act, 2002 the respondent preferred a petition/appeal in ASA-23/2007 before the DRT (Karnataka) at Bangalore, wherein the respondent prayed for interim re-delivery of possession of the property and the same was allowed by the DRT by its order dated 31.1.2007. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed.I have heard the learned Advocates for the appellant and the respondent.2. A similar question arose in the case of The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank v. The DRAT, Chennai and Ors. W.P. No. 46413/2006 and MP-1/2006, wherein Division Bench of the High Court, Madras by its Order dated 7.12.2006, has held: "6. This Court is of the view that there was no occasion for the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal to order re-delivery of possession of the property in question without final determination of the issue" thereby meaning interim re-delivery is not permissible. This case also arose in respect of the proceedings taken...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : IV(2007)BC61
1. The OA filed by the appellant/applicant Bank before the DRT-II at Chennai, was dismissed against defendants 4 and 5 by its order dated 27.9.2006. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed.I have heard the learned Advocates for the appellant and the respondents.2.The principal question involved in this appeal is whether the Power of Attorney executed by the Managing Director of the 4th defendant company to give any guarantee or provide any security without a special resolution of the company is valid under law.The appellant's case is that the defendants 3 to 5 through their power agent the 2nd defendant in the OA, deposited the title deeds relating to their immovable properties on 26.8.1990, with the appellant's Anna Nagar Branch, Madras, with an intention to create equitable mortgage.The defendants 3 to 5 have also executed Memorandum of deposit of title deeds on 28.8.1990, confirming the deposit of title deeds on 26.8.1990, and the creation of equitable mortgage and, there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : IV(2007)BC47
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 3.11.2006, passed in ASA-57/2005, by the DRT, Bangalore, this appeal has been filed.I have heard the learned Advocates for the appellant and the respondent.2. The issue raised in this appeal is whether the mortgage executed/created by a person, who has no title to the property, acquires title to the property subsequently, would validate the mortgage.3. The learned Advocate for the appellant states that the loan was sanctioned on 24.2.1998, and mortgage was created on 26.3.1998. On the date of the mortgage, though there was no sale deed in favour of the respondent in respect of the mortgaged property, he had entered into an agreement with the real owner of the property to purchase the property and also purchased the property subsequently, and therefore, the mortgage executed by the defendant is valid and the said fact was not properly considered and appreciated by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is of the view that on the date of execution of the mortgage, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : IV(2007)BC49
1. By consent of both the parties, both the appeals were heard together and a common order has been passed.2. The appellant filed Applications IA-509 & 510/2004, seeking permission of the DRT to lead oral evidence of his own witness to substantiate its defence and the same came to be dismissed by order dated 15.11.2006. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed.3. The learned Advocate for the appellant has taken me through the affidavit, which was filed before the DRT, wherein it is stated that the then Manager of the appellant-Bank and some other officer have committed certain frauds, which made the appellant-Bank to incur certain losses also. That only in the said circumstances, the appellant has chosen to file applications to examine the appellant-Bank's witness.4. The learned Advocate for the 1st respondent Bank viz. South Indian Bank, contends that there is no provision either in the Act or in the rules framed under the RDDB & FI Act, 1993, enabling the person to ...
Tag this Judgment!