Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : II(2003)BC56
1. The appeal is directed as against the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-2 (DRT), Chennai in IA-38/2002 in TA-343/2001 for sending the document Power of Attorney Ex. A-21 to the Forensic Science Department of Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, for examination as to the age of the manuscript portion and the signatures contained in that document and objection was raised by the respondent Bank and the Presiding Officer, DRT, Chennai dismissed that petition holding that only to protract the proceedings the petition has been filed.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the typed portions in the Power of Attorney filed appears to be new and it would not have been of the year 1975 when the Power of Attorney was executed and the typed portion came into existence only at the later point of time and the Power of Attorney was also not notarized and the Power of Attorney is a fabricated one and this document has to be sent to the Go...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : II(2003)BC1
1. The applicant Bank filed No. OA-636/1996 before Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). Bangalore, for recovery of Rs. 2,91,86,560.84 p. with cost, current and future interest. The defendants I to 3 and 8 remained absent and they were set ex parte. The 6th defendant during the pendency of the proceedings died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The defendants 4, 5 and 9 were represented by Counsel and filed their reply statement. The 5th defendant was the Manager of the plaintiff Bank. The matter was heard by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Bangalore and he passed order for issue of recovery certificate to recover from the defendants 1 to 3 and 9 and from the assets of late Sh. Rudrappa which are in the hands of defendants 6 to 8 for Rs. 1,65,47,807.82 p. with post current and future interest at 19.25 per cent annum compounded quarterly from the date of suit till the date of recovery and also another recovery certificate for Rs. 23,98,089/- wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : II(2003)BC62
1. The 5 defendant filed IA-21 putting forth his counter-claim and contended that appellant must be permitted to file his counter-claim.The applicant-Bank filed objections stating that the counter-claim is not maintainable and it was filed after a lapse more than five years from the date of filing the written statement and evidence was also recorded and 4th defendant has given the evidence on behalf of all the defendants and the petition is filed only to drag on the proceedings.2. The application was heard by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Bangalore and he dismissed the petition holding that the counter-claim is barred by time. Aggrieved against that order the appellant has come forward with this appeal.3. The Counsel for the appellant submitted that Section 19(8) of the Act permits for filing of counter-claim and accordingly the appellant has filed counter-claim by paying necessary Court fee and even though the written statement was filed in the 1996, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : II(2003)BC34
1. The Tamilnadu Textile Corporation Ltd. is the appellant in this appeal. Originally suit was filed by the Bank in Sub-Court, Sivaganga and decree was passed only as against the borrower respondents 2 to 4 in the appeal.2. When the EP was filed, the appellant was also added as party in the EP since the Textile Mill was taken over by the Tamilnadu Textile Corporation Ltd. as per Tamilnadu Act No. 81/1986. After formation of DRTs, the mailer which was pending in Civil Court was transferred to DRT-2, Chennai and DRT-2, Chennai issued Recovery Certificate under Section 31 (A) of the Act in accordance with the decree passed by the Civil Court.3. In the Recovery Certificate issued by the DRT-2, Chennai, the Tamilnadu Textile Corporation Ltd. is the 5th respondent but was not at all a party to the decree passed by the Civil Court. As the company was taken over by the Tamilnadu Textile Corporation Ltd. and the Tamilnadu Textile Corporation Ltd. was added as 5th respondent in Recovery Certifi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
1. The plaintiff Bank filed the original application (OA) for recovery of Rs. 7.45,24.159/-against the defendants. During the pendency of that OA, the 2nd defendant filed IA-14 praying the Tribunal to delete his name from the OA as he is not a necessary party and to dismiss that OA against him stating that the 2nd defendant is not personally liable and the alleged personal guarantee executed is not valid and enforceable and at his request the applicant Bank has relieved him of his personal guarantee obligation by virtue of letters dated 29.7.1995 and 20.11.1995 communications of the Bank expressly relieving him of his personal guarantee and so the 2nd defendant is not liable for the suit claim. The applicant Bank filed objection stating that there was no communication made by the branch or any authority to relieve him of his personal guarantee and the 2nd defendant is also liable to pay that amount. This IA-14 was heard by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Bangalore, and he allowed that IA ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
1. The appeal is directed as against the Order passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Chennai, in TA-23/1999. The applicant Bank filed a suit against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 13,46,349.10 p with interest on the sum of Rs 12,35,593.45 p in the Sub-Court, Erode. The defendants were set ex pane and preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 15.4.1981. The defendants filed application IA-249/1981 to set aside the preliminary decree and that was dismissed by the Sub-Court. The defendants preferred an appeal before the High Court of Madras in CM A No. 417/1983 and obtained interim stay and that CM A was disposed of by the High Court on 14.12.1991. During the pendency of the CMA in the High Court and while during the stay was in force, the Bank filed an application in the Sub-Court, Erode, to pass final decree and the Sub-Court passed the final decree i" the Suit on 13.2.1984. Thereafter, the defendants filed two applications, IA-1114/91 to amend the preliminary decree in respect ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : I(2003)BC76
1. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Ernakulam, in OA-336/1999, the appellant has preferred this appeal and while preferring the appeal there is a delay of 438 days. Counsel for the appellant submits that he filed preliminary objection before the DRT, Ernakulam, and order was passed in the preliminary objection and the appellant was waiting for receipt of the order on the preliminary objection and as such the delay has occurred and the delay has to be condoned.2. Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that on the same day when the Presiding Officer, DRT, dismissed the preliminary objection, order in the Original Application (OA) was passed and no separate order was passed on the preliminary objection and the Counsel for the appellant was also present in the Court when the order was passed and there is no justifiable ground for condoning the inordinate delay of 438 days.3. On a perusal of the Order it is seen that the objections filed by the defendant N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
1. The respondent Bank filed IA-4 before the Presiding Officer, DRT, Bangalore, to direct the defendants to furnish security and upon their failure, to pass a conditional order of attachment before judgment in respect of property mentioned therein. The Tribunal allowed the petition. The appeal is directed as against the order passed by the PO, DRT.2. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the PO, DRT, has passed the order ordering attachment before judgment of 'D' Schedule property preventing the 3rd defendant from alienating or otherwise dealing with the said property until further orders from the Tribunal and the order passed by the PO, DRT, is not sustainable since the relevant conditions for passing order before judgment have not been complied with by the respondent Bank. He pointed out that the respondent Bank has not set out reasons at all for effecting attachment before judgment of that property and as per Section 19(13) of the Act the Tribunal must be satisfied that if a de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : II(2003)BC44
1. The appellant Bank has filed this appeal to set aside the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore, on 31.10.2000. The only contention raised in the appeal is with regard to the rate of interest. The Presiding Officer, DRT, has passed order directing issue of Recovery Certificate as prayed in the plaint and the claim or interest by the applicant Bank is regulated as per the loan document with quarterly rests and directed the Bank to file a Statement on these lines within two weeks from the date of order and thereafter to issue Recovery Certificate. The Bank is much aggrieved as against the order passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT, in respect of the interest awarded.2. Counsel for the appellant Bank submitted that as per the documents hypothecation agreement, packing credit facility, term loan, etc., interest to be charged is with monthly rests upto 14.3.1976 and thereafter interest to be charged at quarterly rests, but the Presiding Officer, DRT, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : III(2003)BC132
1. The respondent applicant Bank filed IA-944/1999 in OA-79/1997 seeking for interim Recovery Certificate in terms of the admission of amount by the defendants 1 to 4 in their reply statement. The Presiding Officer, DRT-1, found that in the reply statement filed by the defendants 1 to 4, they have agreed and admitted to pay Rs. 7.72 lakhs.So to the extent of the admitted liability the PO, DRT, has passed the Order. It is seen from the Order that during the pendency of the application the defendants filed another application in IA-1358/2001 for re-opening the IA-944/99 and also filed other IAs with regard to the maintainability of the OA and the PO, DRT, passed order as follows: "In order to render justice and to provide a fair opportunity to defendants, a conditional order is passed in respect of IA-135 8/01 as well as IA No. 944/99 that defendants shall deposit Rs. 7.72 lakhs in no lien account of the Bank subject to the final disposal of the IA-944/99, 1358/2001 and IA-1187 of 1192/...
Tag this Judgment!