Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : I(2003)BC71
1. The appeal is directed as against the order passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Ernakulam, in IA-137/2000. IA-137/2000 was filed by the defendants for deciding on the preliminary issues. The preliminary issues raised are that the applicant Bank namely, the State Bank of India has no locus standi to file the suit and the amount involved does not relate to debt and the suit is also barred by limitation. The Presiding Officer, DRT, passed the order dismissing the IA.2. Counsel for the appellants submitted that three preliminary objections have been raised by the appellant and on these preliminary objections the suit itself is not maintainable but the Presiding Officer, DRT, has dismissed that petition and the suit itself has to be dismissed and the order passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT, is liable to be set aside. With regard to the first objection that the applicant Bank namely, the SBI has no locus standi to file the suit, Counsel for the appellants submits that the Reserve Ba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
1. The respondent applicant Bank filed IA-2/2002 seeking to restrain the defendants from selling, transferring, disposing of, creating third party right or in any manner dealing with the shares and immovable properties as have come to their shares and allotment in pursuance of Conciliation order dated 29.9.2001 issued in CMP No. 31/2001 and the Tribunal allowed the same and passed an order of injunction on 28.2.2002. The appeal is directed to set aside that order.2. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the property involved in the IA for which interim injunction was sought for are not the mortgaged properties to the Bank and those properties are the Trust properties, the appellant is only a trustee and the beneficiaries are different persons and the appellant has no manner or right over these properties and as it is a Trust property the injunction granted in respect of these properties are to be vacated and the order passed by the PO. DRT, is liable to be set aside.3. The appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : II(2003)BC21
1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant Bank aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, (DRT), Chennai on 29.2.2000.2. The Counsel for the appellant Bank submits that the Bank agreed for Rs. 29.49 lakhs for one time settlement and the Bank has never agreed for lesser amount but the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, (DRT), Chennai has passed order for lesser amount for Rs. 26.50 lakhs as full and final settlement and so the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Chennai, has to be set aside.3. The Counsel for the respondent submits that this matter was not heard on merit and it was decided under a special drive sitting held on 21.8.1999, only after the negotiation with the parties, the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Chennai arrived at such conclusion and directed the defendant to pay a lumpsum of Rs. 26.50 lakhs as full and final settlement to the Bank and this settlement was arrived at in the speci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : II(2003)BC70
1. The appeal is directed as against the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam, in allowing the application filed by the 3rd party applicant for impleading him as additional party in the Original Application (OA). The party impleaded is a worker in the Premier Cable Company Ltd., in liquidation. The Bank resisted the petition. The petition was allowed by the Presiding Officer, DRT, and the proposed party was added as defendant No. 11. Aggrieved against that order the Bank has come forward with this appeal.2. Counsel for the appellant Bank submitted that the party impleaded as D-11 is a worker and he cannot be impleaded as a party in the petition and the wages to the worker also can be worked out and the amount can be set apart and paid to the workers during recovery proceedings and now there is no necessity to implead the worker as a party in the OA which is purely a proceeding between the lender Bank and the borrower and the worker is not a necessar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : I(2003)BC92
1. The respondent Bank as applicant filed the suit against the appellants for recovery of Rs. 13,79,623.94 p. The appellants also deposited the title deeds and created equitable mortgage and the appellants also hypothecated the goods and movables specified in Schedule C. The appellants as defendants filed the written statement contending that there is no agreement for payment of any interest and the Bank has claimed unauthorized charges by way of penal interest, service charges, etc, and the Bank took the signatures of the appellants in several documents without explaining the nature of the documents. The Original Application (OA) was heard by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Bangalore, and it was allowed holding the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the amount decreed and also for sale of the mortgaged property in case of non-setting the claim of the Bank within three months. Aggrieved against the order the appellants have preferred this appeal.2. In this appeal (AT-31/2000) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
1. The appeal is directed by the appellant Bank as against the order passed in IAs-560/1999 to review the order passed in IA-156 and 157/1999 in OA-641/1999.2. The Bank filed suit against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/-and odd. During the pendency of the original application the defendants 6 and 7 filed IAs-156 and 157/1999 for release of their mortgaged properties i.e. 'C' and 'D' Schedule properties.4. The learned Presiding Officer (PO), Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Chennai, passed the order in IAs-156 and 157/1999 directing to release 'C' and 'D' schedule properties in favour of defendants 6 and 7 since the defendants 6 and 7 have paid part of the loan amount of Rs. 19,50,000/-.5. The learned PO, DRT, Chennai has also observed that the remaining properties i.e. 'B' and 'E' Schedule properties remain with the Bank as security for the due repayment of balance amount and the assurance has also been given by the defendants that they would settle the debt.6. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
1. The Catholic Syrian Bank, respondent in this appeal filed an application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions (RDDB & FI) Act, 1993, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 16,94,648/- with interest at the rate of 23.25 per cent. The defendant filed reply statement denying the suit claim. The matter was heard by the learned Presiding Officer (PO), Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Ernakulam and the application was allowed directing to pay by the appellant-defendant a sum of Rs. 17,31,398/- with future interest at the rate of 21.25 per cent per annum simple interest, less amount if any paid, from the date of Original Application till realisation and also charge over the schedule properties in the application. Aggrieved against that order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Ernakulam, on the award of rate of interest, the appellant-defendant has come forward with this appeal.2. In this appeal the appellant contends that the award of intere...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : III(2003)BC33
1. The third party petitioners (Kirlampudi Sugar Mills Staff & Workers Union) filed IAs 245 and 246/2001 before Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Hyderabad to implead them as defendant No. 4 in the Original Application (OA) No. 267/2000 and direction that the sale proceeds of the properties mentioned in 'C Schedule properties were not to be appropriated towards the dues of the applicant Bank in that OA.2. The DRT, Hyderabad, dismissed those IAs by its order dated 27.9.2001 but the Tribunal directed that an amount of Rs. 13,20,034/- awarded by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Eluru, from out of the sale proceeds to be deposited in a fixed deposit to the credit of the OA to enable the third party petitioners to work out their remedies before Recovery Officer after the disposal of the OA and the Writ Petition No.2782/2001.3. These appeals are directed by the appellant Bank as against the direction issued by the learned Presiding Officer, with regard to set aside the direction issue...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
1. The appeal is directed as against the order dated 25.7.1997 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Bangalore, in OA-527/1995. The appellants are defendants 4 and 5 in the Original Application. The PC), DRT, has passed the order allowing the application directing all the defendants jointly and severally to pay the decree amount with interest as directed in the order and further ordered that the FCNR deposits shown in Schedule 'C' are collateral security to the credit facility given to the 1st defendant and the applicant Bank is entitled to appropriate the proceeds of the sale granting three months' lime to settle the claim of the Bank failing which for sale of the 'A' Schedule properly and for balance if any to proceed personally against the defendants.2. The appellants are aggrieved against the order of the PC), DRT, direct ing the appellants to pay the decree amount and also for the declaratory order passed that the FCNR deposits shown in 'C' Schedule are ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : III(2003)BC24
1. The applicant Bank filed IA-893/99 before the Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chennai, for sale of house, ground after defraying the expenses of sale towards the petitioner Bank's claim or direct the 4th respondent in IA to take over the liability of the defendants 1 to 3 in respect of claim made by the applicant Bank and pay the entire amount as claimed in the Original Application. The Tribunal by its order dated 18.3.2002 allowed the IA with certain conditions. The Tribunal passed order stating the defendant is at liberty to deposit the sale consideration amount on or before 28.3.2002 failing which the 3rd party purchaser is at liberty to negotiate with the Bank to purchase the said property from the Bank and may purchase the property for the sale consideration agreed by the Bank and the amount be paid by 31.3.2002.2. The Presiding Officer, DRT-I, has also observed in the order that in case the above said sale is not materialized, 3rd party purchasers Jayanthilal G. Surana and Anita Ja...
Tag this Judgment!