Dismissed

R.Valliammal v. Bank of Baroda

DRAT16 Apr 2025MISC APPEAL/64/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT Appeal Tribunal dismissed an appeal filed by a debtor challenging an DRT order, holding that the appellant's claim for impleadment was an attempt to protract recovery and that the estate of the deceased borrowers was adequately represented by previously impleaded legal heirs.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; order of Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Coimbatore confirmed; costs of respondent bank.

R.Valliammal versus Bank of Baroda — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

MA 64/2013

¶2

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶3

Dated the 16^th day of April, 2025

¶4

PRESENT: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN CHAIRPERSON

¶5

MA 64/2013

¶6

(arising out of Appeal No.5/2012 in DRC No.48/2009 in TA No.936/2002)

¶7

Between

¶8

R. Valliammal, W/o Late M. Ramasamy, No.25B, Pilliyar Koil Street, Annupurpalayam Pudur, Tirupur.

¶9

…..Appellant

¶10

And Bank of Baroda, Main Branch, Mamaraja Salai, Tirupr 641 604.

¶11

…..Respondent Counsel for Appellant : M/s M. Balachander & Co. Counsel for Respondent Bank : Shri S. Pandurangan

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This appeal is filed under Section 20 of RDDB & FI Act against the order

¶14

passed by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Coimbatore in Appeal No.5/2012

¶15

in DRC No.48/2009 in TA No.936/2002 dated 27.12.2012.

¶16

¶17

MA 64/2013

¶18

It appears that applications i.e., IA 530/2012 and IA 531/2012 were filed by the appellant seeking impleadment of the appellant in the proceedings and for deferring the auction sale of the property till the appellant is impleaded as respondent in RP No.109/2009 in DRC 46/2009 in TA 936/2002. These applications had been dismissed by the Learned Recovery Officer against which appeal was filed in Appeal No.5/2012 before the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Coimbatore. Considering the submissions of Learned Counsel appearing for parties and perusing the records, Learned Presiding Officer chose to dismiss the appeal along with applications MA 103/2012, MA 104/2012 and IA 105/2012, which were filed for setting aside the decree passed in TA No.936/2002, impleadment of the appellant in the TA as a party defendant and for stay of recovery proceedings, respectively.

¶19

It is the submission of Learned Counsel for appellant that appellant is the daughter-in- law of second defendant in the TA viz. K. Muthusamy. The said Muthusamy died during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal. He has three sons and they were impleaded as parties to the proceedings. Appellant’s husband Mr. Ramasamy was one of the sons of deceased Muthusamy. The said Ramasamy also died during the pendency of the proceedings in the TA. His son and daughter were impleaded as defendants 7 and 8. However, respondent has not impleaded the appellant being the wife of deceased Ramasamy as a party to the proceedings before

¶20

¶21

MA 64/2013

¶22

the Tribunal. In such circumstances, applications were filed for impleading and for setting aside the order passed in TA No.936/2022. Without giving an opportunity to contest the claim of the bank as legal representative of deceased Ramasamy, Appeal No.5/2012 was dismissed. Therefore, this appeal.

¶23

Learned Counsel for respondent bank submitted that the estate of deceased Ramasamy was sufficiently represented by son and daughter of appellant’s husband Ramasamy. Learned Presiding Officer considering the factual position that loan was sanctioned in the year 1992-1993 and taking into consideration all the subsequent events dismissed the appeal. Thus, Ld. Counsel prayed for confirming the order of Ld. Presiding Officer and for dismissal of the appeal.

¶24

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

¶25

It is seen from the order impugned that loan was sanctioned to the borrowers in the year 1992-1993 and the loan account became a NPA in the year 1997. Property was standing in the name of certificate debtor K. Muthusamy. Despite service of notice in the OA, he remained ex parte. Thereafter, on the application filed by him to set aside the ex parte order, order was passed directing him to deposit 2.00 lakhs for taking his defence on file. Without complying that condition he died.

¶26

¶27

MA 64/2013

¶28

As legal representatives , his three sons including husband of the appellant

¶29

Mr. Ramasamy were impleaded as parties. During the pendency, Mr. Ramasamy also died and his son and daughter were impleaded as defendants 7 and 8 respectively.

¶30

One of the grounds taken by the appellant is that deceased Muthusamy had not executed the loan documents. Having considered the submissions made, it is observed by Learned Presiding Officer that appellant failed to deposit Rs.3.00 lakhs with interest upto date. It is also recorded that other legal representatives of deceased Ramasamy had raised all the contentions raised by the appellant in the OA. Only after considering their submissions, final order was passed in the OA. When the estate of deceased Muthusamy and Ramasamy had been sufficiently represented, it was found impleadment of the appellant is not necessary and it is far fetched claim to challenge the final order after this long period. Final order passed by the Tribunal was not challenged by other legal heirs. Legal representatives had also not come forward to discharge the loan due to the bank. On these grounds, Learned Presiding Officer dismissed the appeal.

¶31

On going through the records and the impugned order, this Tribunal finds that attempt made by the appellant to get her impleaded to challenge the final order passed is nothing but an attempt to protract the recovery

¶32

¶33

MA 64/2013

¶34

proceedings. Appellant’s son and daughter were already impleaded as defendants 7 and 8. Nothing is produced before this Tribunal as to whether

¶35

they informed the respondents or the Tribunal below that appellant is alive and that she has also to be impleaded as one of the legal representatives of

¶36

deceased Ramasamy.

¶37

In the said circumstances, this Tribunal finds that there is no case made out

¶38

for interference in the order passed by Learned Presiding Officer and dismisses the appeal.

¶39

In the result, Order of Learned Presiding officer, DRT, Coimbatore dated 27.12.2012 passed in Appeal No.5/2012 in DRC No.58/2009 in TA No.936/2002 is confirmed and appeal MA 64/2013 is dismissed with the costs of respondent bank.

¶40

Pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶41

[Dictated to Steno(SN), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 16^th Day of April, 2025)

¶42

Sd/- (JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN) CHAIRPERSON

¶43

R.Valliammal v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Valliammal v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S.Shree Durga Poultry Farm versus Bank of India

Mrs Cynthia K versus Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

A Ravishankar versus The Ao Repco Home Finance Ltd.

M/s. Marg Limited & Ors. versus Indian Bank & Ors.

C Durai Son of Chidambaram versus Punjab National Bank

M S Sri Peachiamman Enterprises versus City Union Bank Limited