Partly allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Ms Pathus

DRT8 Jul 2022TA/217/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal partially allowed an application to set aside an ex-parte recovery order. Rejecting the claim that medical reports proved incapacity due to prior abandonment of proceedings, the Tribunal imposed a condition requiring deposit of Rs.6 lakhs to avail the opportunity to be heard.

What did the court decide?

MA 127/2019 allowed on condition that petitioners remit Rs.6 lakhs within 4 weeks; dismissal if default.

Bank of Baroda versus Ms Pathus — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 8^th day of July, 2022

¶3

PRESENT : SHRI T.RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

MA No.127/2019 in

¶6

OA No.71/2018

¶7

M/s.Pathu’s, Represented by its Proprietriex, Mrs.J.Akshaya, W/o.Jayakumar, No.314/50, Velacherry Main Road, Velacherry, Chennai – 600 042. 2. Mrs.J.Akshaya, W/o.Jayakumar, Brindavan Street, Balaiyya Garden, Madipakkam, Chennai – 600 091. … Petitioners/Defendants. Vs. Bank of Baroda, Adayar Branch, Rept. by its Manager cum letter of Authority Holder, “Anu Arcade”, No.1, 15^th Cross Steet, Sastri Nagar, Adayar, Chennai – 600 020. … Respondent/Applicant. Counsel for Petitioners/Defendants. : M/s.P.Jesus Moris Ravi. Counsel for Respondent. : Mr.R.Kumararaja. …..

¶8

ORDER

¶9

This application is filed by the petitioners/defendants with a

¶10

prayer to set aside the exparte order dt.23.05.2019 which was received

¶11

¶12

by the applicant on 06.06.2019. The petitioners/defendants contends that only as the petitioners were unaware that the case was posted on 23.05.2019 and it is also stated that first applicant’s husband is unhealthy and had a brain stroke, kidney failure and because of the ill health, the applicants were unable to instruct the counsel to file written statement in time. Along with petition, the applicants have filed medical reports pertaining to first applicant’s husband dt.27.01.2018 which evidenced that the applicant’s husband had been suffering from head ach, giddiness and history of slurring speech. The other medical reports produced by the petitioner evidenced that the petitioner’s husband was also complaining of breathlessness and chest pain. It is to be noted that all the documents produced along with the petition to substantiate the affidavit of the petitioner that her husband was suffering from brain stroke and kidney failure does not come in aid to support the case of the petitioners/defendants. The entire medical reports which the petitioners/defendants produced in support of the contention in the affidavit does not disclose any serious disease as claimed by the petitioners which will prevent the petitioners/defendants from approaching the counsel for advising him.

¶13

Even going by the proceedings in the OA, it is seen that the summons to D2 had been served and D2 had entered appearance through lawyer on 03.04.2018. Thereafter, the case was listed before Ld. Registrar on 27.04.2018 and 22.05.2018 wherein the Ld. Counsel for the

¶14

¶15

defendants had represented and sought time to file written statement. Thereafter, on subsequent posting date on 05.07.2018 also one more chance was granted at the request of defendant’s counsel for filing written statement. Even, as no written statement is filed the 2^nd defendant, she was set exparte on 07.08.2018. Hence, from the proceedings also it can be gathered that the petitioners herein had participated in the proceedings and later abandoned the proceedings without filing the written statement. The OA is filed seeking issuance of recovery certificate for Rs.11,82,571/- due as on filing of OA (i.e.)on 05.10.2017 and further interest. This Tribunal had considered all the evidence as tendered by the petitioners/defendants has allowed the issuance of recovery certificate permitting the petitioners/defendants to recover a sum of Rs.11,82,571/- with further interest @12% p.a. from the date of application till realization with costs.

¶16

Now the petitioners/defendants who had participated and abandoned the proceedings is approaching this Tribunal with a prayer to set aside the exparte order and the medical reports filed and relied by the petitioners to substantiate the grounds that they had been incapacitated from instructing the counsel, does not support the case of the petitioners and does not satisfy this Tribunal that there are sufficient reasons put forth by the petitioners to enable her to get the order as sought for in the IA. However, as the OA is disposed of without hearing the defendants, this Tribunal feels that the interest of justice can be served by offering an

¶17

¶18

opportunity to the defendants to put up their contentions, if any. However, since the petitioners had been served and they had abandoned the proceedings without any sufficient cause, this Tribunal feels that same can be done only on condition that the petitioners/defendants deposited a portion of the awarded amount as per the final order in the OA. Hence, MA 127/2019 stands allowed on condition that the petitioners remitting an amount of Rs.6 lakhs with the respondent/applicant bank in the loan account within 4 weeks from the date of this order. In case of default in payment of aforementioned amount, MA shall stand dismissed automatically.

¶19

With the above observations, MA stands disposed. No order as to costs.

¶20

( Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 8^th day of July, 2022 )

¶21

Sd./(T.RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of Baroda v. Ms Pathus

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Ms Pathus

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

D Dinesh versus Union Bank of India

A Gajendran versus City Union Bank Limited

Canara Bank versus Sona Arts

Radja Segar Flore versus Indian Bank

S Saravanan versus Varthana Finance Private Limited

M s Adhi Rriches and Accredits versus Uco Bank