Allowed

Bank of Baroda, v. Mrs.Vembu Murugan

DRT28 Dec 2023TA/196/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed a Transfer Application filed by Bank of Baroda to recover an outstanding amount of Rs. 41,25,306 from a deceased borrower's defendant. The tribunal found the evidence unrebutted, the claim within limitation, and ordered recovery with interest.

What did the court decide?

Allowed recovery of Rs. 41,25,306 with 11.6% p.a. interest; issued Recovery Certificate; allowed cost of proceedings.

Bank of Baroda, versus Mrs.Vembu Murugan — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 28^th day of December, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

T.A. No. 196 of 2022

¶4

(Old OA.No.726/2019–DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

Bank of Baroda, Aranthangi Branch, Aranthangi, Represented by its Authorized Officer. … Applicant.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Mrs.Vembu Murugan, W/o Mr.Murugan, 10/92, Kodugavayal, Keelachery, Kundagavayal P.O., Pudukkottai . … Defendant. Counsel for Applicant : M/s.E.Vijayaraghavan. Defendant : Exparte.

¶8

ORDER

¶9

The above Transfer Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery

¶10

of Debt and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs. 41,25,306/- with further interest from the date of filing of the TA and by allowing the same to be recovered from the defendant personally and also by the proceeding against her properties.

¶11

¶12

The above original application is filed before the DRT-I and stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as above.

¶13

The case of the applicant can be encapsulated as follows:

¶14

The defendant as the borrower in the year 2017 had availed the

¶15

following six demand loans from the Applicant.

¶16

SL. No.	Credit Facility	Amount
1.	Demand loan	Rs.4,72,000/-
2.	”	Rs.6,11,000/-
3.	”	Rs.12,89,000/-
4.	”	Rs.6,26,000/-
5.	”	Rs.4,30,000/-
6.	,,	Rs.11,93,000/-

¶17

It is also stated that the above facilities were availed after execution of necessary loan documents by defendant obliging herself to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail. It is also stated that the defendant had hypothecated the stocked commodity as security and deposited original warehouse receipts. It is also stated that amounts were adjusted to the loan account as warehouse rents were paid.

¶18

Even though the defendant had obliged herself to repay the amount promptly and regularly, she failed to do so resulting defaults in the account and the same being declared as NPA on 23.03.2019.

¶19

¶20

The applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendant requesting them to pay back the account and despite the same no, effort was made by the defendant to get the account closed

¶21

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests, the defendant had failed to make the repayment forcing the applicant to file this TA seeking recovery of the amount due in the account with further interest and cost.

¶22

Even as the defendant failed to enter appearance, she was set exparte on 02.01.2020.

¶23

The applicant had let in evidence through AW1 who had sworn to a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleadings in the TA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A60 and got the same marked as evidence.

¶24

Heard the counsel for the applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the TA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶25

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim?

¶26

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶27

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶28

¶29

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible. From the statement of accounts as produced by the applicant, it is evident that the amount as claimed in the TA is outstanding in the account, which the applicant is entitled to get recovered from the defendant and her assets. The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest.

¶30

In view of the finding as entered above

¶31

i) TA No.196/2022 stands allowed.

¶32

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.41,25,306/- (Rupees Forty One Lakhs Twenty Five Thousands Three Hundred and Six only) with future and pendentelite interest @11.6% p.a. from the date of filing of

¶33

the TA till realization from the defendant and also by sale of hypotheca after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶34

¶35

iii) A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the recovery officer to enable recovery of the amount as per the above terms.

¶36

iv) Applicant is allowed to realize cost of the proceedings for which cost memo is to be filed in 7 days’ time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶37

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of

¶38

Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶39

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 28^th day of December, 2023)

¶40

Sd./- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶41

Bank of Baroda, v. Mrs.Vembu Murugan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda, v. Mrs.Vembu Murugan

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

Central Bank of India versus M/s Naviya Cashews

Bank of India versus Ravishankar

Mr Sivakumar and Mrs Rekha versus Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

Indian Overseas Bank versus R.Ramesh

M/s Canara Bank Erstwhile M/s Syndicate Bank versus T.R. Saravanan

Deutsche Bank Ag versus Kothari Bath Concepts