Allowed

Bank of India v. Cyntia Rosety Feliciana

DRT28 Aug 2023OA/93/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Bank of India against a borrower for recovery of Rs. 52.60 lakh plus interest, ruling summarily ex-parte as the defendant failed to appear. The court directed payment within 60 days and issuance of recovery certificates.

What did the court decide?

Defendant to pay Rs. 52,60,930.45 plus interest within 60 days; recovery certificate issued.

Bank of India versus Cyntia Rosety Feliciana — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

OA No. 93 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. 93 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

MRS. CYNTIA ROSETY FELICIANA FERNANDES

¶9

Adult, Indian Inhabitant, having address at House No. 408/C, Opp. Piety Chapel, Coldem, Talaulim, Navelim Salcette, Goa – 403 707. …DEFENDANT

¶10

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

Page 1 of 5

OA No. 93 of 2022

J U D G M E N T

The Original Application is filed by the Applicant against the Defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 52,60,930.45 (Rupees Fifty Two Lakh Sixty Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty and Paise Forty Five Only) under Term Loan Account No. 100773810000018 with further interest at the rate of 8.50% with monthly rests plus 2 % penal interest from the date of filing original application till payment and/or realization as per the particulars of claim to the Original Application.

¶15

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.47.60 Lakh vide Sanction Letter dated 17.02.2018 to the Defendant for the purchase of 1 No. of Water sports Winch Parasailing FRP Boat with other fittings, equipment’s etc., on the terms and conditions mentioned therein.

¶16

In consideration of sanction the said loan, the Defendant have executed the various loaning and security documents on 17.02.2018 which includes Demand Promissory Note, Comprehensive Undertaking / Declaration / Authority Letter, Non –Relationship Declaration, MCLR Agreement, Declaration, Hypothecation cum Loan Agreement and Composite Agreement . etc.

¶17

Page 2 of 5

¶18

OA No. 93 of 2022

¶19

It order to secure the said loan, the Defendant hypothecated 1 No. of Water sports Winch Parasailing FRP Boat with accessories, fittings / equipment etc. in favour of the Applicant.

¶20

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 30.04.2019. 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

Page 3 of 5

¶26

OA No. 93 of 2022

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

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.52,60,930.45 (Rupees Fifty Two Lakh Sixty Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty and Paise Forty Five Only) under Term Loan Account No. 100773810000018 with further interest at the rate of 8.50% with monthly rests plus 2 % penal interest from the date of filing original application till payment and/or realization as per the particulars of claim to the Original Application.

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

Page 4 of 5

¶34

OA No. 93 of 2022

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

File be consigned to record.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

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

¶41

St/--

¶42

Page 5 of 5

Bank of India v. Cyntia Rosety Feliciana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Cyntia Rosety Feliciana

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

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 Stacy

Durgesh Paul Sachdev versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstrution Companylimited

State Bank of India versus Shantinath Mobile