Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Mr Subodh Kumar Rao and Anr.

DRT11 Apr 2023OA/39/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Applicant Bank's recovery application against Defendants who failed to appear. The Court adjudicated the claim as secure by hypothecation and mortgage, directing the Registrar to issue a recovery certificate under Section 19(22) RDB Act, 1993.

What did the court decide?

Declaration of joint and several liability to pay principal and interest; issuance of recovery certificate under Section 19(22) RDB Act, 1993.

Union Bank of India versus Mr Subodh Kumar Rao and Anr. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I KOLKATA

¶2

PRESENT: -SHRI AMBUJA MOHAN DAS PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

O.A. No.39 OF 2022

¶4

DATE OF DELIVERY OF ORDER : 11^th April, 2023

¶5

UNION BANK OF INDIA , a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act. 1970 having its Head Office at 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 and branch office amongst other places at Serampore (eAB) Branch, Sagnik Apartment, 630, GT Road, Kalitala, Serampore, District-Hooghly, West Bengal, Pin-712201.

¶6

..............APPLICANT

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

MR. SUBODH KUMAR RAO, son of late Babulal Rao, carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Subodh Kumar Rao as sole proprietor thereof at Vill-Thakuhat, P.O.Bora, P.S.-Singur, District-Hooghly, Pin-712306 and also at 541, G.T. Road, Manicktolla, Flat No.401, 4^th Floor, Ananda Niketan Apartment, Serampore, District-Hooghly, Pin-712201 and residing at 64/D, S.C. Chatterjee Sarani, Bahir Serampore, District- Hooghly, West Bengal, Pin-712203 and Taxmaco Water Gate, P.O.+P.S.- Belgharia, District- North 24 Parganas, Kolkata-700056.

¶9

MRS. RUPA RAO, wife of Mr. Subodh Kumar Rao, residing at 541, G.T. Road, Manicktolla, Flat No.401, 4^th Floor, Ananda Niketan Apartment, Serampore, District-Hooghly, Pin-712201 and residing at 64/D, S.C. Chatterjee Sarani, Bahir Serampore, District- Hooghly, West Bengal, Pin-712203 and Taxmaco Water Gate, P.O.+P.S.- Belgharia, DistrictNorth 24 Parganas, Kolkata-700056.

¶10

DEFENDANTS

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant Bank: - Mr. Ramesh Ch. Prusti , Ld Counsel Counsel for the Defendants:- Set ex-parte on 22.06.2022.

¶12

J U D G M E N T

¶13

The present Recovery Application is filed by Union Bank of India, a nationalized Bank carrying on business of Banking all over India including branch office amongst other places at Serampore (eAB) Branch, Sagnik Apartment, 630, GT Road, Kalitala, Serampore,

¶14

Tsm..

¶15

District-Hooghly, West Bengal, Pin-712201 for recovery of Rs.30,26,807.61p against the Defendants till payment and/or realization. The Defendants are the borrowers/guarantors/mortgagers.

¶16

The service of summons was effected upon the Defendants in usual mode of postal service. Despite giving sufficient time, the Defendants neither appeared nor filed the Written Statement to controvert the claim of the Bank. Hence, the defendants are declared exparte on 22.06.2022.

¶17

The Applicant in support of its contention filed Evidence on Affidavit duly affirmed by Mr. Suman Maji, Branch Manager of the applicant Bank, annexing the various documents which are exhibited.

¶18

I have perused the documents and Evidence and heard the Ld. Advocate for the Bank. By the said evidence on affidavit the Applicant could prove its claim and documents. The claim of the Bank is within the limitation and within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Hence, the claim of the Bank should be allowed with cost.

¶19

In the above circumstances it is ordered :

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

i) Claim of the Applicants is allowed with cost. ii) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.30,26,807.61p along with interest calculated upto 31.12.2021 with further interest from 01.01.2022 @ 8.90% p.a. in respect of Cash Credit (H), @ 8.00% per annum Covid Emergency Line of Credit @ 7.50% per annum Union Guaranteed Emergency Credit Line and @ 7.30% per annum in respect of Housing Loan Account against the Defendants till payment or realization.

¶22

iii) It is declared that the claim is secured by hypothecation of moveable and mortgage of immoveable property described in Schedule X and Schedule Y – all that mortgaged properties appearing at page 333 in the OA.

¶23

iv) Let, a certificate be issued accordingly.

¶24

v) Ld. Recovery Officer shall realize the amount as per the Recovery Certificate from the defendants in accordance with law.

¶25

vi) Ld. Registrar of this Tribunal is directed to deliver recovery certificate in term of the final order/judgment for recovery

¶26

Tsm..

¶27

of the sum against the defendants in favour of the Applicant Bank under Section 19 (22) of the Recovery of Debts due to the Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 now known as Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.

¶28

vii) The parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer on 19.05.2023 for further action in accordance with law in the event the entire amount is not paid by the said date.

¶29

Accordingly, the Original Application being O.A. No.39 of 2022 is allowed and stands disposed of. All the IAs, if any, are also disposed of.

¶30

Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s website.

¶31

File is consigned to the Record Room.

¶32

(Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11^th day of April, 2023)

¶33

Place: Kolkata ( Ambuja Mohan Das ) Date: 11/04/2023 Presiding Officer

¶34

Tsm..

¶35

Page No.-		Order Sheet(continuation)
Case No. OA/	39/2022 U	nion Bank of India Vs. Subdh Kumar Rao & Anr.
Date of the order		Order with signature	Office action with date and dated signature of parties when necessary
11/04/2023	Ld. Advoca None is pre Matter was The detaile the order is as foll	te Mr. R.C. Prusti appeared for the Applicant Bank. sent on behalf of the Defendants. heard in open Court on this the day of 22.06.2022. d order in three pages annexed separately. The gist of ows: O R D E R
	i) ii)	Claim of the Applicants is allowed with cost. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.30,26,807.61p along with interest calculated upto 31.12.2021 with further interest from 01.01.2022 @ 8.90% p.a. in respect of Cash Credit (H), @ 8.00% per annum Covid Emergency Line of Credit @ 7.50% per annum Union Guaranteed Emergency Credit Line and @ 7.30% per annum in respect of Housing Loan Account against the Defendants till payment or realization.
	iii)	It is declared that the claim is secured by hypothecation of moveable and mortgage of immoveable property described in Schedule X and Schedule Y – all that mortgaged properties appearing at page 333 in the OA.
	iv)	Let, a certificate be issued accordingly.
	v) vi)	Ld. Recovery Officer shall realize the amount as per the Recovery Certificate from the defendants in accordance with law. Ld. Registrar of this Tribunal is directed to deliver recovery certificate in term of the final order/judgment for recovery of the sum against the defendants in favour of the Applicant Bank under Section 19 (22) of the Recovery of Debts due to the Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 now known as Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.
	vii) Accordin is allowed and sta	The parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer on 19.05.2023 for further action in accordance with law in the event the entire amount is not paid by the said date. gly, the Original Application being O.A. No.39 of 2022 nds disposed of. All the IAs, if any, are also disposed of.

¶36

Tsm..

¶37

Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s website. File is consigned to the Record Room. (Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11^th day of April, 2023) Place: Kolkata ( Ambuja Mohan Das ) Date: 11/04/2023 Presiding Officer

¶38

Tsm..

Union Bank of India v. Mr Subodh Kumar Rao and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Mr Subodh Kumar Rao and Anr.

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

Similar cases

Hdfc Bank versus Aman Jaiswal

Bank of India versus M/S Hexagen Aqua Pvt. Ltd.

Dev Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. versus State Bank of India

Hdfc Bank versus Dolly Sarkar

Hdfc Bank versus Sekh Imran

Hdfc Bank versus Mohammad