Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : IV(2007)BC45
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 5.10.2006 in IA-84/2006 in TA-615/2001, passed by the DRT-2, Chennai, the defendants 2 to 4 have filed this Appeal.2. The learned Advocates for the appellants states that there was One Time Settlement (OTS) in the year 2001, and the appellants have settled the entire amount by 2.8.2004. The appellants also filed certain documents along with the petition filed before the DRT to prove the settlement.3. The respondent Bank also admitted the OTS, but had stated that the appellant have not paid the amount in time and, therefore, the proposal was not acted upon and appellants are not entitled to the benefit of the OTS.4. The Tribunal was of the view that the OTS is an affair between the borrower and the Bank, and the Tribunal has no role to play. I am unable to subscribe my view to the same. The Tribunal, though it does not constitute a Court in the technical sense, it exercises judicial powers and decides matter brought before it judicial or quasi-judicial.I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : IV(2007)BC42
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.9.2006, in IA-621/2006 in DCP-1656/2006 in OA-562/1998, passed by the DRT, Bangalore, the applicant Bank has preferred this appeal.I have heard the learned Advocates for the appellant and the respondent.2. OA filed by the respondent had already been decreed and recovery certificate was also issued. Pursuant to the same, the mortgaged property was attached by order dated 20.11.2003, and the property, was brought to auction on 10.2.2004, 15.6.2004,27.7.2005, and on 26.4.2006.That in the meanwhile, the appellant Bank came to know that the certificate debtors 2 and 3 have sold the mortgaged property in utter violation of the prohibitory order of attachment. Hence, the appellant filed the application stating that the respondent has done, so with an intention to delay the recovery of the amount due to the appellant Bank. Even after selling the mortgaged/attached property, the respondent has not chosen to pay or deposit the sale proceeds. Without disclosing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : IV(2007)BC39
1. This is an application to condone the delay of 1652 days in filing the appeal.I have heard the learned Advocates for the petitioner and the 1st respondent Bank.2. The petitioner in the affidavit has stated that he was a minor at the time when he was admitted in the 1st defendant's Firm as a partner, and on attaining majority, the petitioner did not want to continue as a partner, and given a letter on 31.3.1993, to the 1st defendant firm, and thereupon, the partnership firm was reconstituted from 1.4.1993. It is also stated that the Managing Partner of the 1st defendant Firm has given a letter on 8.5.1993, that the petitioner/appellant ceased to be the partner of the 1st defendant firm. The petitioner/appellant further stated that the entire proceedings before the DRT was conducted by his father for and on his behalf, and even the written statement was singed by him while he was out of station. The appellant, therefore, pleads ignorance of the proceedings. The petitioner further sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : IV(2007)BC16
1. The respondent filed Claim Petition in IA-2806/2004 before the Recovery Officer-1, of DRT, Ernakulam, and the same was allowed on 20.6.2005. As against the same, the appellant Bank filed Appeal No.18/2005 before the DRT, Ernakulam, and there was a delay in filing the said Appeal and a separate application IA 1510/2005 was filed to condone the delay and the same came to be dismissed by order dated 18.8.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the Bank has preferred this Appeal.I have heard the learned Advocates for the appellant and the respondent.2. The application filed by the appellant to condone the delay in filing appeal under Section 30(1) of the RDDB Act, 1993, was dismissed by the DRT on the ground that the provisions of the Limitation Act, are not applicable to the Tribunal except for an application filed under Section 19 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993. The reason given by the Tribunal is, that the Tribunal is not a Court and it was constituted under Section 3(1) of the Act, and therefore, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : IV(2007)BC53
1. This appeal is directed as against the order dated 10.4.2006 passed by DRT-I at Chennai in SASR No. 159/2005.2. The appellant and his mother borrowed amount from the 1st respondent-Bank and they have also deposited original title deeds of the property with the Bank. The appellant has been making payments regularly. But, however, the 1st respondent Bank invoked the provisions of SRFAESI Act, 2002 and issued notice dated 16.6.2003 under Section 13(2) of the said Act. The respondent-Bank also issued a notice under Section 13(4) of the Act. It is stated that on 5.9.2005, a group of people calling themselves as enforcement agents attempted to enter into the property, and the same was thwarted by filing W.P. No. 29431/2005 before the High Court of Madras, in which, the High Court granted stay in W.P.M.P. No. 32237/2005 and the said writ petition was dismissed.Writ Appeal No. 2255/2005 was filed and the writ appeal also came to be disposed of, directing the appellant herein to exhaust the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : IV(2007)BC18
1. This regular appeal is directed as against the order dated 31.5.2006 in OA 35/2006 passed by DRT, Ernakulam.2. The appellant Bank filed the suit in OS-29/1991 before the Sub-Court, Kottarakara, Kerala for recovery of a sum of Rs. 85,609.75p in respect of Working Capital Term Loan Account and for Rs. 78,034/- due under Cash Credit Account, for a total sum of Rs. 1,63,643.75 together with interest @ 14% p.a. with quarterly rests from the defendants jointly and severally and charge on the schedule of properties. The suit was decreed ex parte on 30.1.1996 and the same was challenged by the respondents in CRP-511/2001, and the High Court of Kerala set aside the ex-parte decree by Order dated 7.7.2004 and the suit was restored to file. That thereafter, the suit was decreed on 20.12.2004, and the judgment reads as under: (A) Allowing the plaintiff to recover Rs. 85,609. 75 as shown in the memo of account 'A' with future interest at the rate of 14% per annum with quarterly rests. (B) Allow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : IV(2007)BC32
1. This Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred as against the order dated 6.11.2006 passed by DRT, Bangalore in LA. 563/2006 in OA 343/2005.I have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and also perused the appeal papers. The respondents were set ex parte on 31.1.2007.2. The appellant has filed an application under Section 19(13)(A) of the RDDB & FI Act, 1993 for attachment of the property before judgment, stating that the security already offered by the respondents was much less than the amounts due to the appellant Bank. The mortgaged property was a small building, and therefore, it would not fetch the amount to satisfy the appellant's claim in the OA. It is also stated that the appellant came to know from reliable sources, namely one of the customers of the Bank that the 1st respondent and her husband were trying to sell the property set out in the schedule to the petition thereunder, with a dishonest intention and with a view to defraud and delay the appellant, and if they do...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : IV(2007)BC14
1. This is an application filed under Section 22(2)(e) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 to recall the Order dated 7.11.2005 to bring the property for sale in public auction by the respondent Bank by fixing the upset price of Rs. 25 lakh, and the sale proceedings shall be deposited with the respondent Bank in an interest earning No-Lien Account, and that would, be treated as the balance of the pre-deposit under Section 21 of the RDDB & FI Act, 1993.I have heard the learned Advocates for the petitioner and the respondent Bank.2. It appears that the petitioner herein had challenged the Order dated 7.11.2005 by way of filing Writ Petition in WP No. 18327/2006 before the High Court of Karnataka and the High Court passed an Order on 21.12.2006 which runs as under: Even though the petitioner has prayed the stay of the proposed auction to be held on 3.1.2007 at 11.30 a.m. by the 1st respondent at DRT, Hudson Circle, Bangalore, we are not inclined ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed as against the Order dated 5.5.2006 in Appeal No. 8/2002, in DRC-130/2001 (TA-1746/1997, DRT-I, Chennai), passed by the DRT-II at Chennai.1. The Appellant viz. Punjab National Bank, obtained a Debt Recovery Certificate for sale of property in TA-1746/1997 dated 6.5.1999 and the DRC dated 16.8.1999. The 4th Respondent herein viz. Indian Bank, also obtained orders in TA-168/1997 dated 15.7.1997, and the date of DRC was 9.1.1998. Pursuant to the DRCs issued in favour of the Appellant and the 4th Respondent, both the Banks brought the property for sale and that in the auction taken by the Punjab National Bank, the sale was fixed on 17.7.2002, and the same was postponed to 5.8.2002. During that point of time, it was brought to the notice of the Recovery Officer by the 4th Respondent Bank, that the property mortgaged to them was put on public auction in DRC-130/2001 on 17.7.2002, by way of filing Affidavit. The Appellant Bank also filed Counter Affidavi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
1. The 3rd Respondent/1st Defendant (D1) in the OA along with the Appellant herein, filed two Applications in IA No. 443 & 444/2006 in OA No. 1523/1997 and OA No. 84/2001, before the DRT, Bangalore, praying the Tribunal to stay the auction sale held on 20.4.2006, and also to grant time till 18.5.2006, to deposit the balance sale consideration (Rs.2.15 Crores) and also to accept Rs.3.40 Crores as full and final settlement against the dues of the Respondent Banks 1 & 2, and both the Applications came to be dismissed by Order dated 30.5.2006. Aggrieved by the same, this Appeal has been filed.2. The 1st Respondent Bank filed OA-1523/1997, and the 2nd Respondent Bank filed OA-84/2001. By forming a consortium between themselves, a common Recovery Certificate dated 2.2.2006 in DCP No. 1799, was issued by the DRT, Bangalore. Pursuant to the same, the property was brought to sale and it was also sold on 20.4.2006. It appears, the 3rd respondent who is the borrower, moved the 1st & ...
Tag this Judgment!