Skip to content

Latest Judgments Home  Latest Judgments  Court:DRAT

Jul 17 2008

R. Krishnan Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad and Others

  • Decided on : 17-Jul-2008

Court : DRAT - Madras

Common Order 1. The Appellant has preferred these Appeals challenging the Orders passed by the DRT, Bangalore, in AOR-1/2006 dated 30.3.2007 and AOR-17/2005 dated 17.5.2007. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties may be referred to hereunder as they are arrayed in Appeal MA-233/2007. 3. The facts leading to the filing of these Appeals may be set out as under :- The 1st Respondent Bank filed the Applications under Section-19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter called as RDDBandFI Act) before the DRT in OA Nos.171/2001, 172/2001 and 173/2001 against the Respondents 2 to 6 herein for recovery of Rs.35,20,930.18p, Rs.25,22,938.44p and Rs.13,00,185.88p respectively with future interest at 16% p.a. from the date of Application till realisation with quarterly rests and also for sale of the pledged and hypothecated properties described under A, B and C Schedule and for costs. After hearing both sides on merits, OAs were ordered as prayed...
Jun 30 2008

K. Ramachandra Vs. State Bank of India, Rehabilitation and Recovery Br ...

  • Decided on : 30-Jun-2008

Court : DRAT - Madras

1. The Appellant has instituted this Appeal challenging the Order passed by the DRT at Bangalore, in AOR-6/2006 in OA-256/2000 on 14.9.2006. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this Appeal may be set out briefly as under :- The Appellant is a 3rd party Agreement holder and he filed the Application before the Recovery Officer, DRT at Bangalore, on the basis of the registered Agreement for Sale dated 25.11.2003 executed by one Smt. Laxmi Agarwal, raising objections in confirming the sale of the Schedule property in the recovery proceedings DCP-2549 in OA-256/2000 and the same was dismissed on 10.2.2005. Aggrieved by the Order of the Recovery Officer, he preferred the Appeal in AOR-6/2006 before the DRT at Bangalore, on the ground that the Recovery Officer dismissed the same over-ruling his objections and confirmed the sale held by him in DCP-2549 in OA-256/2000. Ld. PO after hearing both sides and upon perusal of the records of the case, dismissed the said Appeal with exemplary costs a...
Jan 22 2008

M.N. Muthanna Vasu Vs. Malaprabha Grameena Bank And Ors.

  • Decided on : 22-Jan-2008

Court : DRAT - Madras

Reported in : I(2008)BC159

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the legality of the order passed by the DRT, Bangalore on 14.2.2007 in MA-50/2004.2. The appellant and the 3rd respondent herein have filed the application in MA-50/2004 on the file of DRT. Bangalore to set aside the ex parte order passed against them in OA-312/2002. The 1st respondent Bank filed its objections in the said proceedings. After hearing both sides, the learned Presiding Officer dismissed the application filed by the appellant and the 3rd respondent herein.Hence, the appeal.3. The 1st respondent Bank has filed the OA-312/2002 against the appellant and the respondents 2 and 3 herein for recovery of Rs. 46,97,120/- with future interest at 16% p.a. from the date of application till the date of realization and also for sale of the hypothecated properties under Schedules A and C and for sale of the mortgaged properties under Schedules B and D. In the said proceedings, the appellant herein, who was ...
Oct 15 2007

Jit Singh And Anr. Vs. Central Bank Of India And Ors.

  • Decided on : 15-Oct-2007

Court : DRAT - Delhi

Reported in : (2008)141CompCas209NULL

1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the order dated October 1, 2003, passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh, dismissing the Miscellaneous Application No. 188 of 2003 for setting aside the ex parte decree dated March 27, 1996. The said application was made under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.Appellants Nos. 1 and 2 herein, namely, Mr. Jit Singh and Mr. Jaspal Singh were defendants Nos. 7 and 4 respectively in the suit in question whereas appellant No. 3, Mr. Baldev Singh (son of appellant No. 1 Mr.Jit Singh) was allowed to be impleaded by the hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide order dated September 25, 2006 in C. M. No.13433-CII of 2003 in Civil Revision No. 5233 of 2003.The relevant facts are stated hereunder. The first respondent-Central Bank of India had filed Suit No. 182 of 1993 for the recovery of Rs. 12 lakhs and odd against the defe...
Sep 05 2007

State Bank Of Patiala Vs. Chopra Wheels Pvt. Ltd. And Ors.

  • Decided on : 05-Sep-2007

Court : DRAT - Allahabad

Reported in : I(2008)BC99

1. In this appeal the order dated 13th December, 2005 passed by the D.R.T., Lucknow is under challenge. This order was passed in T.A. No.805/02 accepting the pleas of the present respondents for the payment and in full satisfaction under O.T.S. Scheme (3rd Scheme) issued by the R.B.I.2. Briefly stated the history giving rise to this appeal is that one suit No. 1526/ 96 was filed before the Civil Court of Ghaziabad for recovery of Rs. 12,16,380.25. By virtue of enactment of RDDBFI Act, 1993, the above suit was transferred to D.R.T., Allahabad where it was given a new number as T.A. No. 1045/2000. After establishment of Lucknow, the above T.A. was transferred to D.R.T., Lucknow. During the proceedings the appellant Bank and the respondents compromised the case for a sum of Rs. 16.12 lacs. The respondents deposited a sum of Rs. 2,66,120/- with the Bank and the matter was decided on the basis of above compromise. According to the appellant Bank after compr...
Jul 30 2007

Shrimal Plantation And Ors. Vs. State Bank Of India

  • Decided on : 30-Jul-2007

Court : DRAT - Allahabad

Reported in : I(2008)BC155

1. R-615/2005 is an appeal filed by Shri Shrimal Plantation praying for setting aside an order dated 13th October, 2005 passed by the D.R.T., Jabalpur in review application No. 2/2002, wherein prayer was for setting aside the judgment dated 8th March, 2002 passed in Original Application No. 188/2000. The other Appeal No. R-616/2005 has been filed by the same appellant challenging the judgment dated 8th March, 2002 passed by the D.R.T., Jabalpur in Original Application No.188/2000. In Appeal No. R-616/2005 there is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act also requesting to condone the delay of 1290 days in filing this appeal on the ground that review application was filed before the Tribunal, but the same was dismissed on 13th October, 2005, against which order another appeal has been preferred apart from this appeal.2. Briefly stated the history giving rise to these two appeals is that the respondent Bank filed Original Application No. 188/2000 f...
May 17 2007

Siddharth Rice Mills And Ors. Vs. Bank Of Baroda

  • Decided on : 17-May-2007

Court : DRAT - Allahabad

Reported in : I(2008)BC32

1. The respondent No. 1-Bank of Baroda instituted an Original Application No. 175 of 2002 under Section 19 of the RDDBFI Act, before D.R.T., Jabalpur for recovery of Rs. 38,61,829.33. The appellant-defendants contested the above Original Application filing their written statement challenging the claim of the respondent No.1-Bank. For the actual short controversy, raised in this case, we need not give the details of pleadings of both parties. In the written statement apart from other pleadings a pleading was raised that the officers of the Bank have acted in most mala fide and fraudulent manner on account of which irreparable loss had been sustained by the appellant-defendants as because of illegal and unauthorised fraudulent transfer of a sum of Rs. 10 lacs from cash credit account to the term loan account. The appellant-defendants pleaded that they had filed criminal complaint case against the Bank officer under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code which w...
Apr 10 2007

Bank Of Baroda Vs. Fertilizer Sales Organisation

  • Decided on : 10-Apr-2007

Court : DRAT - Allahabad

Reported in : I(2008)BC24

1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 29th March, 2006 passed by D.R.T., Allahabad in T. A. No. 151 of 2000 rejecting the application moved on behalf of the appellant Bank of Baroda for obtaining the second opinion of the Hand Writing Expert of Government of India. Briefly stated the history giving rise to present appeal is that the Bank of Baroda appellant filed an application before D.R.T., Allahabad against present respondents for the recovery of money on the basis of amount advanced to the respondents. In above case the respondent denied signatures on the documents of loan produced by the Bank before the Tribunal. In above circumstances the report of Hand Writing Expert was called for by the Tribunal in connection with signatures available on the documents filed by the Bank after obtaining sample signatures. The report from the Joint Director, Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala, Uttar Pradesh, Mahanagar, Lucknow dated 26th June, 2002 was received wi...
Mar 20 2007

Canara Bank Vs. T. Bhimaraj

  • Decided on : 20-Mar-2007

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 pr...
Jan 23 2007

Hajiani Firoz B. Vs. Central Bank Of India And Ors.

  • Decided on : 23-Jan-2007

Court : DRAT - Mumbai

Reported in : I(2008)BC83

1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 25th October, 2004 passed by the Residing Officer, D.R.T.-II, Mumbai allowing Original Application of the respondent Bank to hold the appellant/ defendant No. 4 liable jointly and severally with defendant Nos. 1 to 3 for the debts of the borrower company. The appeal arises in the following circumstances.2. The respondent Bank had filed the Original Application against four defendants. Defendant No. 1 was borrower company and defendant Nos. 2 to 4 were directors and guarantors. A loan was sanctioned to the defendant No. 1 company by the respondent Bank.3. After considering the evidence, the Presiding Officer in para No. 4 of the judgment dated 4th February, 2003 has observed that the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 had executed guarantees in 1996 onwards. In para 11 of the judgment it is also observed that the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 admitted to have signed the guarantee agreement However, in the operative portion of...
Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //