Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Smt Neelam Singh

DRT18 Jul 2022OA/23/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed an Original Application filed by Bank of Baroda to recover dues of approx. Rs. 32 lakhs from a borrower who defaulted on term and cash credit loans. The court ordered recovery from assets and granted a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 32,39,047.61 with interest; injunction against disposal of assets; permission to sell hypothecated/mortgaged properties.

Bank of Baroda versus Smt Neelam Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT LUCKNOW

¶2

Present: A.H. Khan,^presiding Officer

¶3

Case No. Original Application No,Z3 ot 2OZ2

¶4

Dated:19.7.2022

¶5

Bank of Baroda, a body corporate duly constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking), Act of 1970 (Act No.V of 1970), having its Head Office at Baroda Bhavan, RC Dutt Road, Alkapuri Baroda, Gujarat-390007, Corporate Office Baroda Corporate Centre, C_26, G_ Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 and a Branch at Khudagani District Shahjahanpur, now transferred to

¶6

ROSARB, at NTt Campus, Lodhipur, Shahjahanpur-242001.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Smt. Neelam Singh, @o Shri Ahjendra Singh, R/o Village & Post Office Majhila Tehsil Titha r District Shahjahanpur, Up.

¶9

........Defendant

¶10

Counsel for the applicant-Bank : Mr. Ajesh Anand, Advocate. Counselfor the defendant : None.

¶11

IUDGMENT

¶12

This Original Application has been filed by the applicant Bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against defendant for the recovery of Rs.32,39,047.61/_ (Rupees Thirty

¶13

Two Lacs, Thirty Nine Thousand Forty Seven and paisa Sixty One Only) (Rs.21,53,719.52/- in Cash Credit Loan Account) &^-n

¶14

'l ,/,

¶15

O.A. No.23 of2022

¶16

(Rs.10,85,327.99/- in Term Loan Account) together with pendentelite and future interest, costs and other reliefs etc.

¶17

The brief facts of the case are that the defendant is borrower. The defendant approached the bank for grant of Cash Credit Facility of Rs.10.00 lacs and Term Loan of Rs.13.75 lacs, which were duly considered and sanctioned by the bank on 05.3.2010 on certain terms and conditions (Exhibit No.A-1) to this original application.

¶18

To secure the above credit facilities of total facility of Rs.23.751lacs, the defendant had executed and signed various security documents in favour of the applicant-bank on 28.4.2010 like D.p. Note, Letter of lnstallment with Acceleration Clause, Declaration Cum Undertaking, Hypothecation Agreement, Hypothecation of movable Machinery, Attestation Memo, Letter of Continuing Security and Draft Undertaking (Exhibit No.A-2 to Exhibit No.A-10) to this original application.

¶19

Further, in order to secure the repayment of bank dues, the defendant had created mortgage of her immovable propefi i.e. Gata easure 1. h Khet N & Sin iil er Chak M : Khet in favour of the applicant-bank on 2!.1..2011 by depositing of title deed of the y'ropy'rty (Exhibit No.A-11 to Exhibit No.A-17) to this original application

¶20

¶21

O.A. No.23 o12022

¶22

The defendant had also executed^{and signed Balance and Security} Confirmation Letter dated 07.4.2Ot3,^{37.12,2075, 29.4.2016and} 05.4.2019 confirming the balance^{in the loan accounts (ExhibitNo.A-18} to Exhibit No.A-21) to this original application.

¶23

For availing the aforesaid credit facilities the applicant^{Bank had} opened two loan accounts in the^names of^{defendant in order to} maintain the accounts of the said loan facilities.

¶24

After availing the aforesaid credit facilities, the defendant failed to maintain financial discipline and also failed to comply with the terms and conditions, consequently, the loan account of the defendant were classified as NPA on 11.5.2015 by the bank as per RBI^guidelines therefore, the applicant-bank issued Legal Notice dated 15.7.2021 (Exhibit No.A-22) to the defendant, but she did not considered the same and the loan accounts of the defendant are still un-liquidated, hence, this Original Application has been instituted.

¶25

As per books of the bank maintained in the usual and ordinary course of banking business, an outstanding of Rs.32,39,047.6U- (Rupees Thirty Two Lacs, Thirty Nine Thousand Forty Seven and Paisa Sixty One Only) (Rs.21,53,719.62/- in Cash Credit Loan Account) & (Rs.10,85,327/- in Term Loan Account) including interest upto 30.10.2021 were lying due for payment, for which, the defendant are jointly and severally liable to repay the same, which she did not *, I despite repeated requests and demands. The applicant-bank has filed

O.A. No.23 of 2022

the copy of Statement of Accountss (Exhibit No.A-23 & Exhibit No.A-24) to this original application.

¶31

The cause of action for filing the present application arose firstly on 05.3.2010 the aforesaid credit facilities were sanctioned by the applicant-Bank and the same were availed by defendant and necessary documents were executed. The cause of action further arose again on 13.72.202L when the applicant bank had issued Legal Notice to the defendant recalling the entire outstanding dues and she failed to pay the same.

¶32

The summons were served upon defendant through registered post, but the defendant did not turn up to contest the case, hence, the matter proceeded ex-parte against the defendant.

¶33

1L. ln support of the case, Sri Suresh Chandra, Chief Manager of the applicant Bank has filed affidavit (As per this original application).

¶34

on a careful scrutiny of the evidence on affidavit and Exhibit marked as (Exhibit No.A-1 to Exhibit No.A-25 to this original application), it is proved that defendant had availed the abovementioned credit facilities from the applicant bank by executing loan and security documents detailed as above in favour of the applicant-Bank. A perusal of the application, evidence and documents relied upon clearly show that defendant had utilized the credit facilities.

¶35

as granted to her. The applicant-bank had maintained the Books of accounts in the ordinary course of banking business showing disbursal of the loan amount. lt further shows that bank had regularly credited

O.A. No.23 of 2022

the amount paid by the defendant in the books of accounts. The Bank had also charged interest from time to time and the entries are relevant u/s 4 of the Bankers Books of Evidence Act. lt is also proved that the applicant bank's claim is within limitation from execution of balance and security confirmation letters. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the dues of the applicant-bank.

¶40

Accordingly, the defendant is directed to pay the balance dues to the applicant bank within a period of 2 months from the date of judgment failing which the applicant bank will be entitled to sell the personal assets/properties of defendant.

¶41

The applicant-bank has claimed interest @8.1,6% per annum in Cash Credit Loan Account and interest @8.60% in Term Loan Account together with pendent-lite and future interest per annum in Loan Account till the date of its realization and costs. The contest between the applicant-bank and the defendant comes to an end and after filing of the O.A. as per the provisions of Section 19(2) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (as amended from time to time) which is analogous to Section 34 to the CPC, the Tribunal/Court has discretion in awarding pendet-lite and future interest. lam also supported in my view by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled Central bank of lndia vs.

¶42

Ravindra and others reported in AIR 2001 SC page 3095. On the basis of n the foregoing discussion, interest of justice will be served if pendete-lite ) / and future interest is granted @8.00o/o per annum in both the Loan,

/\ /\ / ./

O.A. No.23 of2022

Accounts with monthly rate on reducing balance from the date of filing of the O.A. till the date of realization with costs.

¶47

ln the result, the Original Application succeeds exparte against the defendant, with costs. The bank has proved the loan execution of loan documents in favour of the bank. The defendant is liable to pay the dues of the bank and the hypothecated assets/mortgage property as well as

¶48

personal property/properties ofthe defendant are liable to be sold.

¶49

lt is, therefore, ordered:-

¶50

(i) That the Original Application No.23 of 2022 of the applicant bank for issuance of Recovery Certificate to the tune of Rs.32,39,047.61/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lacs, Thirty Nine Thousand Forty Seven and Paisa Sixty One Only) (Rs.21,53,7L9.621- in Cash Credit Loan Account) & (Rs.10,85,327/- in Term Loan Account) with interest @8.00% per annum in both the loan accounts with monthly rest from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e.37.72.2021 till the loan is fully liquidated and costs succeeds and is hereby allowed exparte against defendant.

¶51

(ii) The defendant is directed to pay the dues within a period of two months from the date of judgment, failing which the applicant bank will be entitled to recover the same from the personal movables and immovable assets of the defenda'""

¶52

//

¶53

O.A. No.23 of2022

¶54

(iii) The applicant-Bank ls entitled to^{recover aforesaid amount} by the sale of hypothecated^{assets/mortgageproperty (lf not} sold earlier under the^{provisions of the 5.A.R.F.A.E.S.l.Act,} 2OO2) the, amount,^if any^{recovered by sale of hypothecated} assets/mortgage^property or^{otherwise shall be ad.iusted} towards the debt and only the^{balanceamountshallbe} recoverable. lf the dues of the^{applicant bank still remain} unsatisfied, the same be^{recovered by} the^{attachment and} sale of the^personal movable and^{immovableassets of the} defendant.

¶55

(iv) The defendant is hereby restrained^{by means} of^injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering, alienating orⁱⁿ any way dealing with her^{properties/estates} without^first paying the claim of the applicant bank.

¶56

(v) Let Recovery Certificate be issued immediately u/s L9l22l of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial lnstitution Act, 1993 by fixing 18.10.2022, before R.O., DRT, Lucknow.

¶57

L7. The applicant bank is directed to file a memo of cost for^preparing Recovery Certificate u/s 19(22) of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1.993.1.993. 0 Judgment is pronounced pronounced in the open the open court.

¶58

Act, 1.993.1.993.

¶59

Judgment is pronounced pronounced in the open the open court.

¶60

¶61

oated 18.7 .2022

¶62

'// aH. Khan) iding Officer

Bank of Baroda v. Smt Neelam Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Smt Neelam Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punjab National Bank versus Smt Indra Sharma

Mr Ombir Singh versus Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.

M S Uninor Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. versus Union Bank of India

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus M/S Divya Geeta

Union Bank of India versus Mr Virendra Kumar Gupta

Mr Amzad Hussain versus Punjab National Bank