CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2010) 07 MAD CK 0211

V.S.K. Ferro Alloys Limited and Dr. J. Murali Manohar vs Bank of Baroda, T. Nagar Branch, now ARMB and Dr. S.K. Durai Raj

Madras High Court · Decided on 7 July 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
M. Sathyanarayanan, J · D. Murugesan, J
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
C.R.P. (PD) No. 2228 of 2010 and M.P. No. 1 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 335 words

M. Sathyanarayanan, J.—The respondents instituted a recovery proceedings by filing O.A. No. 715 of 1999 on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai, for recovery of Rs. 2.12 crores and an exparte decree came to be passed. Thereafter the Debt Recovery Certificate bearing No. 12 of 2006 dated 6.2.2006 was also drawn. The said Debt Recovery Certificate was transferred to Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, and numbered as DRC No. 356 of 2007. Subsequently, an order of attachment dated 25.3.2010 came to be passed in respect of three items of property. Subsequently, a compromise proposal was initiated and one time settlement was reached wherein the petitioner/borrower had expressed to pay a sum of Rs. 150 crores towards full and and final settlement and time was extended upto 28.2.2010 to complete the said proposal. Since it has not been complied with, the respondent Bank proceeded further and an order of attachment came to be passed on 25.3.2010.

2.

Mr. T.T. Ravichandran, learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner filed an Application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, seeking to stay all further proceedings in DRC No. 356 of 2007 and also to raise the order of attachment dated 25.3.2010 by contending that there are infraction on the Rules in Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act 1961 and that the Recovery Officer orally rejected the recovery proceedings and proceeded further.

3.

We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and also perused the documents available in the typed set of papers.

4.

Considering the limited grievance expressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Application having been orally rejected by the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, we are of the considered opinion that suffice to direct the said officer to entertain the said Application if it is filed and in order and consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law.

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.