Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Jayachandramurthy

DRT30 Nov 2023TA/568/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 19 of the RDB Act, the DRT allowed the debtor's application for recovery of agricultural loan dues. The court upheld the claim as unrebutted, ordered recovery of the principal with simple interest, and directed the sale of mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 21,31,147 with 10% simple interest; order to proceed against and sell schedule A and B properties; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Bank of Baroda versus Jayachandramurthy — Money Laundering | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 30^th day of November, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

TA.No.568 OF 2022

¶5

(Old OA.No.723/2019 –DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

Bank of Baroda, Bharathi Street, Cuddalore-607001.

¶7

… APPLICANT.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Mr.B.Jayachandramurthy, S/o.Bangaru Reddiar, Keelazhinjipattu Village, Reddichavadi Post, Cuddalore Taluk.

¶10

Mr.D.Balasubramanian, S/o. Mr.Dhandapani, Rampakkam Village, 11/22, Thiru Nagar, Cuddalore -607001. … DEFENDANTS. Counsel for Applicant : Mr.O.F.Raju. Defendants : Exparte. ……

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The above Transfer Application is filed under section 19 of the

¶13

Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of

¶14

Rs.21,31,147/- with further interest from the date of filing of the TA and

¶15

also by allowing the same to be recovered from the defendants jointly

¶16

¶17

and severally and proceeding against and selling A schedule movable

¶18

and B schedule mortgaged properties.

¶19

The case of the applicant can be encapsulated as follows:-

¶20

The defendants being the borrower had applied for and availed the following facilities from the applicants.

¶21

Credit facility	Amount
Agricultural Cash credit	Rs. 3,50,000
Agricultural Term loan	Rs. 4,85,000

¶22

It is also stated that the above facilities were availed after execution of

¶23

necessary loan documents by defendants obliging themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶24

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents. The 1^st defendants had created security by way of equitable mortgage over the schedule mentioned properties. Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, a composite hypothecation over the A schedule movables marked as being the security for repayment of the loan.

¶25

Even though the defendants had obliged themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, they failed to do so resulting defaults in the account and the same being declared as NPA on 12.11.2011.

¶26

The applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendants requesting them to repay the account and despite the same, no effort was made by the defendants to get the account regularized

¶27

¶28

over to pay back the amount. Even as no repayment was made despite repeated request the applicant had on 18.01.2017 caused to issue lawyer notice requiring repayment of the amount due in the account, which was replied raising untenable contentions.

¶29

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

¶30

Even as the defendants failed to enter appearance, they were set exparte on 27.12.2019.

¶31

The applicant had let in evidence through AW1 who had sworn to a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleadings in the OA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A29 and got the same marked.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶35

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶36

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remain exparte. The evidence tendered by 3

¶37

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 OA is outstanding in the account, which the applicant is entitled to get recovered from the defendants and their assets (including the schedule mentioned property). The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest. Since the credit facility is agricultural one, the prayer for monthly rest is refused and pendentelite and future interest is awarded at 10% (simple).

¶38

In view of the finding as entered above

¶39

i) TA.No.568 OF 2022 stands allowed. ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.21,31,147/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Thirty One Thousand One Hundred Forty Seven only) with future and pendentelite interest @ 10% (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶40

iii) The schedule A and B properties are be proceeded against and sold and if the sale proceeds are not sufficient the defendants and their other assets are liable to be proceeded

¶41

against.

¶42

¶43

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

¶44

v) 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.

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 30^th day of November, 2023)

¶48

Sd./-

¶49

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

¶50

Bank of Baroda v. Jayachandramurthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Jayachandramurthy

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

Indian Bank versus M/s. Royal Agro and Diary Limited

M/s. Idbi Bank Ltd. versus M/s V.S Enterprises

Thangamani oil Stores versus Indian Overseas Bank

State Bank of India, versus R.M.Ezhilarasu

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus Mr.S.Rengaraj

Idbi Bank versus Ramajayam R