Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : I(2007)BC128
1. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the Order dated 24.3.2006 passed in MA-134/2003 I OA-1639/ 1998 by the DRT-I at Chennai. The defendants in the OA are the appellants. The OA filed by the respondent Bank was decreed ex parte on 13.7.1999. The defendants 1, 2 and 4 have filed an application to set aside the ex parte order and also to condone the delay in filing the appeal and for stay. The application to condone the delay in MA 134/2003 came to be dismissed by the DRT by its order dated 24.3.2006, and the same is under challenge in this Appeal.2. Before this Tribunal, S.R. Baskaran, the 2nd defendant in the OA, filed the Affidavit for himself and on behalf of other defendants 1 and 4, wherein he has stated that they were carrying on business at No.69/9, Aryagowda Road, West Mambalam, Chennai, and they were not served with any summons from the Tribunal, but however, they were served with the notice from the Bank through their Advocate to the correct address at No. 69/9, A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : I(2007)BC86
1. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed as against the order dated 6.7.2006 passed in RA-12/2005 in MP-29/2005 in RP-128/2004 in OA-303/2002, by the DRT, Hyderabad.2. The appellant is the borrower and the OA filed by the respondent Bank was decreed on 18.5.2004. Pursuant to the same, the properties of the appellant was also brought to sale on 7.6.2005 and it was also sold on the same day. As against the same, the appellant preferred RP-128/2004 questioning the validity of the auction and the same was dismissed. As against the same, the appellant also preferred RA before the DRT and the same was also dismissed by order dated 6.1.2006.Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed.3. The learned Advocate for the appellant has raised several grounds in the memorandum of appeal and during the course of the argument, he has confined to the ground that the properties were not sold for a proper price and that the auction purchaser did not pay the balance of the sale consideration within ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : I(2007)BC114
1. This Miscellaneous appeal is directed as against the interim order dated 28.4.2006 in SA-26/2006 passed by DRT-II at Chennai.2. The appellant filed SA-26-2006 before the DRT contending that he had purchased undivided share of 300 sq. ft. from one T. Velayudham, which is bearing Flat No. FI and he is in possession of same. The appellant has mentioned that he has not taken any loan from the respondent Bank nor he has mortgaged his property, and as such, he is a third party to the measures taken by the respondent Bank. As the property was brought to sale by public auction, to be held on 29.4.2006, the learned Presiding Officer without going into the merits of the case had directed the appellant herein to deposit a sum of Rs. 6 lakh directly to the respondent Bank within 4 weeks from the dale of order. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred this appeal.I have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the respondent Bank.3. The case of the appellant is consistent that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : IV(2006)BC212
1. This regular appeal has been filed as against the order dated 14.11.2005 in IA-371/2005 in OA-394/2002 on the file of DRT-II, Chennai.2. The appellant Bank filed the OA against five respondents for recovery of a sum of Rs. 28,74,474.87p. together with interest at the rate of 12.5% p.a. with quarterly rests. The defendants entered appearance and took time for filing reply statement. At that stage, the defendants have approached the applicant Bank for a settlement and also given a proposal. The defendants have agreed to pay Rs. 21.02 lakh out of Rs. 28.74 lakh and agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on or before 30.9.2004 and the remaining amount on or before 28.8.2005 with Bank's PLR simple rate of interest and failure to comply with the above said compromise, the applicant Bank is at liberty to claim the entire amount as claimed in the OA.3. The matter was referred to the Lok Adalat held by the Tribunal on 28.8.2004, and the Lok Adalat passed an award on 28.8.2004, which runs as un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : IV(2006)BC181
1. The appellant herein, who is the 6th defendant in the OA-382/2003 had taken out an Application in IA-475/ 2005 for the return of the documents in the pending OA and the same came to be dismissed by the DRT, Coimbatore, by its Order dated 5.10.2005. Aggrieved by the same, this Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed.I have heard the learned Advocate for the appellants and the respondent.2. The case of the appellants is that they have deposited certain documents with Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. with an intention to create equitable mortgage and the said Bank filed TA-1320/2002, and their claim was settled out of Court. When the appellants applied for the return of the documents before the Tribunal, that application was dismissed on the ground that no documents were available with the Tribunal. Subsequently, the Lakshmi Vilas Bank, respondent herein, filed OA-382/ 2003 and the same is pending. That in the OA, the appellants had taken out an application for the return of the documents co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : IV(2006)BC215
The appellant is the applicant in OA-41/1999 on the file of DRT, Bangalore. OA was filed for the recovery of the amount from the defendants, holding them personally liable to pay the amount, and also for the sale of Schedule I hypothecated stocks, Schedule II pledged machineries, Schedules III and V mortgaged properties, for the realisation of the debt. The Tribunal by its Order dated 15.10.2004, allowed the OA, holding that the defendants 1 to 5 personally liable to pay the amount and sale of Schedules I and II hypothecated properties alone, and the reliefs sought for the sale of Schedules III and V immovable properties, was disallowed, Aggrieved by the same, the applicant Bank has preferred this appeal.I have heard the learned Advocates for the appellant Bank and the respondents.1. The learned Advocate for the appellant Bank would submit that the execution of the mortgage by deposit of title deeds by the defendants in respect of Schedules III and V immovable properties was accepted ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : IV(2006)BC201
1. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed as against the order dated 12.8.2005, made in IA-19/2004 in OA-440/2002 by the DRT at Bangalore.The appellants are the defendants in the OA. They have filed an application to record the compromise entered into between the appellants and the respondent Bank and to treat the OA as settled out of Court, and the said petition was dismissed by the DRT by order dated 12.8.2005. Hence this appeal.2. During the pendency of the OA, the 2nd defendant filed an application to record the settlement entered into between him and the Bank and to dismiss the OA. The 2nd appellant was a registered proprietor of the trade mark 'Eenadu' and the same was owned by him.That in order to discharge the amount payable to the respondent Bank, it was suggested by the Bank that the trade mark 'Eenadu' shall be assigned to it so that it can wipe out the debt due to them and accordingly the Deed of Assignment was entered into on the 8th day of October, 2003. As per the agreem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : 2(2007)BC26
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. filed an application before the D.R.T. to substitute themselves as applicant in the Original Application in the place of existing applicant, viz. I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd. and the same was allowed by the D.R.T. by order dated 2nd February, 2006. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant, who is the respondent No. 1 in the Original Application has preferred this miscellaneous appeal.I have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the respondents and also perused the appeal papers.1. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., the respondent No. 1 herein, in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, has stated that the debt due to the respondent No. 2, namely I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd. from the appellant has been assigned to them, which was confirmed by the agreement dated 20th April, 2005 and as per the said agreement, the respondent No. 1 has become the full and absolute owner and the only person legally entitled to receive the debt due from the appellant with effect from 31st Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : II(2007)BC33
1.This regular appeal has been filed as against the order dated 23rd September, 2005 passed in Original Application No. 648 of 1999 by D.R.T.-I, Chennai.2. The" Original Application filed by the appellant for the recovery of the amounts was decreed as prayed for. But, however, it was held that, the responsibility of the defendant No. 6, being a guarantor, was only to the extent of the value of the portion/share of the schedule mortgage property in his possession, and he is not personally liable, and the said finding is under challenge in this appeal.3. The defendant No. 1-company is a partnership firm represented by its partners defendant Nos. 2 to 5 and they have availed certain loan facilities from the appellant Bank, for which defendant Nos. 4 to 6 stood as guarantors and they have executed personal guarantee in favour of the applicant Bank, and they have also executed mortgage extension letter by creating a valid equitable mortgage in favour of the appellant Bank in respect of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : DRAT Madras
Reported in : I(2007)BC62
1. The appellant Bank filed the Original Application against 11 defendants and the same was decreed against the defendant Nos. 1 to 7 and 11 and the claim against the defendant Nos. 8. 9 and 10 was dismissed. As against the same, the Bank has preferred this appeal.2. The case of the appellant Bank is that the defendant No. 1 is partnership firm and defendant Nos. 2 to 6 are its partners. At the request of 1st defendant, the appellant Bank sanctioned term loan for a limit of Rs. 45 lacs against the security of hypothecation of factory land and building, and machinery and guarantee of defendant Nos. 2 to 11 and mortgage of immovable properties of defendant Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10. The defendant Nos. 2 to 5 and 7 to 10 created the mortgage against their immovable properties described in item Nos. 1 to 6 by depositing their title deeds with the applicant-Bank 19th March, 1994. As the defendant No. 1 firm committed default in payment of the amount, the appellant Bank after the issu...
Tag this Judgment!