Allowed

Bank of India v. Stacy

DRT28 Aug 2023OA/92/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal heard an application by Bank of India to recover approximately Rs. 1.16 crore against Ms. Stacy Ann Fernandes for a defaulted term loan. Proceeding ex-parte, the Tribunal allowed the application, directing the defendant to pay the principal, accrued interest, and costs, and directing attachment of assets.

What did the court decide?

Directed the defendant to pay Rs. 1,16,27,446.22 plus interest at 9.25% p.a. within 60 days, issue a recovery certificate, and attach assets; costs awarded against the defendant.

Bank of India versus Stacy — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

OA No. 92 of 2022

¶2

Registered on: 03.03.2022 Decided on: 28.08.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT MUMBAI

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 92 of 2022

¶5

BANK OF INDIA , a Bank, a body Corporate Constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act V of 1970, having their Head Office at Star House, C-5, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 and one of its Branch office Amongst Other known as Panaji Branch situated at Rua De Ormuz, P. B. No.167, Panaji, Goa – 403 001, through its Constituted Attorney, Mr. Sangram Singh Chief Manager of the Applicant.

¶6

..APPLICANT

¶7

Versus

¶8

MS. STACY ANN FERNANDES Adult, Indian Inhabitant, having address at House No. 20, Barros Vaddo, Sangolda, Chogm Road, Bardez, Goa - 403 511. …DEFENDANT

¶9

________________________________________________________________ Counsel for the Applicant : Adv. P. Shinde i/e. Anant B. Shinde Counsel for the Defendants : Ex -parte

Page 1 of 5

OA No. 92 of 2022

J U D G M E N T

The Original Application is filed by the Applicant against the Defendant for recovery of Rs.1,16,27,446.22 (Rupees One Crore Sixteen Lakh Twenty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Forty Six and Paise Twenty Two Only) under Term Loan Account 100773410000049 with further interest at the rate of 9.25 % with monthly rests from the date of filing original application till payment and/or realization as per the particulars of claim to the Original Application.

¶14

The facts succinctly set out in the Original Application are that at the request of the Defendant, the Applicant had sanctioned and granted Term Loan of Rs.95.00 Lakh vide Sanction Letter dated 03.08.2018 to the Defendant for the purchase of 2 Nos. of Watersports Winch Parasailing FRP Boat with other fittings, equipments etc., on the terms and conditions mentioned therein.

¶15

In consideration of sanction the said loan, the Defendant have executed the various loaning and security documents on 03.08.2018 which includes Demand Promissory Note, Comprehensive Undertaking / Declaration / Authority Letter, Non –Relationship Declaration, MCLR Agreement, Declaration, Hypothecation cum Loan Agreement and Composite Agreement . etc.

¶16

Page 2 of 5

¶17

OA No. 92 of 2022

¶18

It order to secure the said loan, the Defendant hypothecated 2 Nos. of Watersports Winch Parasailing FRP Boat with accessories, fittings / equipment etc. in favour of the Applicant.

¶19

However, the Defendant failed to adhere the financial discipline and neglected to make the payment of the outstanding dues. Therefore the account of the Defendant was classified as Nonperforming Asset (NPA) on 31.05.2019. Thereafter, the Applicant issued a Notice dated 16.03.2021 and called upon the Defendant to make the payment of the outstanding dues but the Defendant failed to pay the dues of the Applicant Bank. The Applicant has left with no other option but to approach this Tribunal for recovery of its dues, hence, the present OA has been filed.

¶20

Notices were issued to the Defendant. Despite service, none appeared on behalf of the Defendant nor any WS has been filed, thus, she was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 28.07.2023.

¶21

The Applicant Bank has produced all the Original Loan documents and other relevant documents along with their Claim Affidavit filed on 28.06.2023 through their Chief Manager Mr. Nikhil Kulkarni.

¶22

I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and perused the record.

¶23

The witness of the Applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the OA, even otherwise the whole case of the

¶24

Page 3 of 5

¶25

OA No. 92 of 2022

¶26

applicant bank is based on documents and the witness has duly proved all these documents as against the Defendants. In my view there is no question of disbelieving the evidence led by the Applicant bank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

¶27

In the light of above discussions, the Original Application by the applicant bank deserves to be allowed against the Defendant.

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

a. I allow this OA and direct the Defendant to pay to the Applicant Bank, within a period of 60 days, a sum of Rs.1,16,27,446.22 (Rupees One Crore Sixteen Lakh Twenty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Forty Six and Paise Twenty Two Only) under Term Loan Account 100773410000049 with further interest at the rate of 9.25 % with monthly rests from the date of filing original application till payment and/or realization as per the particulars of claim to the Original Application.

¶30

b. Failing which amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated assets as well as other personal moveable and immovable assets of the Defendant.

¶31

c. Defendant is hereby directed not to deal with her properties/assets till further direction of Ld. Recovery Officer.

¶32

Page 4 of 5

¶33

OA No. 92 of 2022

¶34

d. Defendant shall also pay the cost and expenses of the OA.

¶35

e. Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer of this Tribunal.

¶36

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

¶37

File be consigned to record.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

Place: Mumbai. (Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar) Date : 28.08.2023 Presiding Officer, DRT-1, Mumbai.

¶40

St/--

¶41

Page 5 of 5

Bank of India v. Stacy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Stacy

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

Standard Chartered Bank versus Mahendra Rosin and Turpentine Pvt. Ltd.

Ravishankar Pasupuleti versus Central Bank of India

Standard Chartered Bank versus S K S Textiles Limited

Bank of India versus Cyntia Rosety Feliciana

Durgesh Paul Sachdev versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstrution Companylimited

State Bank of India versus Shantinath Mobile