Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : II(2003)BC6
1. The appeal is directed as against the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in IA-212/2001 in OA-1481/1998 dated 25.6.2001. The respondent Bank filed this IA seeking permission to sell the property situated at 307, P.H. Road, by private sale and deposit the sale proceeds to the account of the Bank. The 2nd defendant has no objection. The 5th defendant has also given consent subject to the condition mentioned in their compromise letter dated 21.6.2001, The learned Presiding Officer allowed the IA granting permission of the interim sale of the property at 307, PH Road, which are mortgaged with the Bank over which defendant No. 5 is also having a charge. The learned Presiding Officer has further ordered that the sale shall be conducted by inviting tenders and the sale proceeds shall be appropriated by the Bank only after the sale is confirmed by the Court and subject to the appropriate conditions which may be imposed by the Court in the light of the Supre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : I(2003)BC50
1. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Chennai, in TA-101/1997 against the appellant (defendant No. 3 in the OA) for recovery of a sum of Rs. 90,055.74p with 12% simple interest from the date of plaint till the date of realisaction, the appellant has preferred this appeal.2. The appellant in this appeal contends that the Tribunal erred in holding that the appellant is not entitled to hold back the amount due under the bills and the Tribunal erred in holding that a sum of Rs. 90,055.74 p, was due and payable by the appellant to the 1st respondent Canara Bank with simple interest at the rate of 12% and the Tribunal also erred in observing that the 1st respondent Bank restricted its claim upto four payments i.e. dated 21.7.1987 for Rs. 1,037.74p, bill dated 17.9.1987 for Rs.1,838/-, bill dated 17.10.1987 for Rs. 11,902/- and bill dated 19.10.1987 for Rs. 75,278/-, and the appellant has also sustained loss because the 2nd respondent d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : II(2003)BC66
1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed as against the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Bangalore, in dismissing the petition in impleading another party as 3rd defendant in the Original Application (OA).2. The petition to implead M/s. Shamanur Estates, Bangalore, as defendant No. 3 was filed by the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant contends that the shares of the defendant were agreed to be sold for a nominal price to M/s. Shamanur Estates, which is to clear the debts due to the Bank and M/s. Shamanur Estates has also paid a sum of Rs. 9.95 crores to the Bank and the Bank has accepted the amount and so M/s.Shamanur Estates has to be impleaded as party 3rd defendant in the OA.The Bank filed objections contending that the proposed 3rd defendant is not a debtor and there is no privity of contract between the Bank and the proposed 3rd defendant. It further contends that the Bank is not a party to any of the lease agreements and M/s. Shamanur E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
1. The petitioner Bank of Baroda has filed this petition in IA-2 for amendment of plaint as set out in the petition for amendment (a) "To realise the plaint amount of Rs. 19,66,837/- with future interest at the agreed rate of 19.75% p.a. from the defendants 1 to 3 jointly and severally and from the assets especially from the movable and immovable assets scheduled hereunder which is hypothecated and mortgaged in favour of the applicant Bank. (b) To realise the cost of the suit from the defendants 1 to 3 jointly and severally and from the assets especially from the movable and immovable assets scheduled hereunder which is hypothecated and mortgaged in favour of the applicant Bank. (c) To realise the plaint amount of Rs. 19,66,837/- with future interest at the agreed rate of 19.75% p.a and the cost of the suit from the defendants 4 to 6 jointly and severally to the extent of the estate inherited by them from the deceased Mr. S. Sankaran Unni, and (d) Such other reliefs which the Court ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : II(2003)BC51
1. The Petitioners Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and Kerala Financial Corporation 5th and 6th defendants in the Tribunal below have filed these Petitions under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions (RDDB&FI) Act, 1993 (the Act) for waiver of mandatory deposit of the 75% of the decreed amount.2. These petitioners contend that they advanced loans to the 1st defendant in the applicption and the title deeds which relate to immovable property of the 1st defendant were deposited with the petitioners creating joint equitable mortgage and the plant A Schedule property were jointly mortgaged by the said company under the pari passu inter se arrangement between the financial institutions and accordingly it was agreed between the petitioners appellants and the, respondent institutions that the mortgaged properties shall be distributed in proportion or in the ratio of 80:60:28 between the petitioners and the Union Bank of India-plai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : I(2004)BC13
1. The Appellants are defendants 2 and 4 in the Original Application (OA). The appellants filed IA 227/2001 directing the Tribunal to reject the OA as the same is against Rule 10 of the DRT (Procedure) Rules under the RDDB & FI Act, 1993. According to the appellants, they are the partners of D6 Firm and they retired from the partnership firm on 20.1.1997 and they are not liable for this claim as they retired from the partnership and they are only the erstwhile partners of the D6 Firm. The appellants further contend that the OA is filed as against the loan availed by D1 and D6 Firms and the two loans cannot be clubbed together in one OA and for the two loan transactions one OA filed is not maintainable and it is hit by Rule 10 of the Act. The appellants further contend that only if the two reliefs are clubbed together the jurisdiction of the DRT can be moved and the amount will exceed Rs. 10 lakhs and if a Suit is filed on each transaction for the loan of D1 and D6 separately, thos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
1. In these seven connected Unregistered Appeals this Appellate Tribunal passed the order under Section 21 of the RDDB & FI Act directing the appellants to deposit in all Rs. 7,50,40,000/- (Rupees seven crores fifty lakhs forty thousand only) (Details mentioned in the order under Section 21).2. The total amount claimed in the seven Original Applications (OAs) by the Bank was about Rs. 12 crores. This Appellate Tribunal in the order under Section 21 passed on 18.4.2001 directed the appellants to deposit with the branch of the Bank concerned the amounts mentioned below : __________________________________________________________________ 7,50,000/- (Seven lakhs fifty thousand only ) __________________________________________________________________ 7,50,40,000/- (Seven crores fifty lakhs forty thousand only). __________________________________________________________________ 3. These amounts were ordered to be deposited on or before 19.7.2001.The amounts were not deposited by the app...
Tag this Judgment!