securitisation act
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 08 September 2010
This query is : Resolved
DRT verdit in case i found: the bank did not maintain the accounts properly
in the loan account and there is no explanation from
the bank so far as maintaining of the acount is concernred
and it is clear in all the bank cases and the account copy
will fasten the liability but in this case the account copy
itself is incorrect and people will believe the account copy
of the bank and this account copy seems to be totally
incorrect inview of the several pay slips filed
by the defendents which are marked
as EX B13 to EX B18 containing many books.
In these CIRCUMSTANCES THEACCOUNT COPY
CANNOT BE BELIVED AND THEREFORE THE OAhas to be
allowed only for the amount of Rs. 1128685/- with simple interest 6%pa.,
from the date of OA till realisation.
This recovery certificate is being issued
since it is public money and there is no document
to show how much amount acually due to the applicant bank.
The bank never proved the amount due.
It is the intial burden on the bank according to the
Evidence Act Sec 101 to 103 and the intial burden is not
discharged by the bank.
Therefore, the bank cannot base on the demerits
of the defendents case
How the defendents cameout fromthe clutches of bank? They win the case DRAT?
Surprising banks if not prpoerly maintain how the coustmer saved? customer is GOD to the bank, but now no bank feels the same, moreover behaves and using abusing language. NPA became more fraud and it became GOLDMINE to the bank officials
The party submitted the account through an CA and moreover party paid excess of Rs.4 lakhs. The bank manager in his cross accepted that the bank failed to credit some amounts tothe account. The fixed deposits Rs.1.25 lakhs not credited to theaccount and states there is no record. FDRs no."s,amount,dated stated the defendents. Those are pledged tobank. The bank states orginal account book misplaced/not found/lost. Typed a/c copy produced. So many credit vouchers not reflected in the account. So how far DRAT help tothe defendents? possible
Also the bank financed and account inthe name of ALT (ITS name of the building)but the mortaged property inthe name SKT. Suit filed inthe name of ALT. VALID?
R.Ranganathan
(Expert) 08 September 2010
The entire case history i.e. the Application filed by the bank, the Reply given by the OPs and the exhibits filed will have to be studied for clear understanding of the matter. If the Bank has failed to substantiate its claim, then either the concerned official is at fault or something wrong somewhere. PIL may be filed by interested persons to safeguard the public money.
s.subramanian
(Expert) 08 September 2010
I agree with Mr.ranganathan.
a.manoharan
(Expert) 09 September 2010
I agree with experts . But, whatever the discrepancies, that should be clearly defined in Plaint to show the court u come forward with clean hands. .
Parthasarathi Loganathan
(Expert) 09 September 2010
Everything can be perused once account statements are obtained from the bank which the account holder is very much entitled.
