Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Mrs Senthamarai

DRT28 Dec 2023TA/571/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for recovery of debts granted. The Tribunal allowed the transfer application filed by the Bank of Baroda against loan defaulters, permitting recovery of the principal amount with interest and ordering the sale of mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.1,03,55,433.19 with interest from specified defendants and sale of mortgaged properties; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Bank of Baroda versus Mrs Senthamarai — Execution and Attachment | 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.571 of 2023

¶4

(Old TA.No.438/2018–DRT-I, Chennai) (Old OA.No.470/2017–DRT-III, Chennai)

¶5

Bank of Baroda, Anguchettypalayam Branch, No.116/3, Salem Main Road, Anguchettypalayam, Panruti Taluk, Rep.by its Branch Manager.

¶6

… Applicant.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Mrs.Senthamarai, W/o.Sekar, No.134, Nalliah Main Road, Nallikuppam Post, Panruti Taluk.

¶9

Mr.M.Sekar,

¶10

No.134, Nalliah Main Road, Nallikuppam Post, Panruti Taluk.

¶11

Mrs.S.Selvi, W/o.Seduraman, No.236, Main Road, Nalliah, Nallikuppam Post, Panruti Taluk.

¶12

¶13

Mrs.T.Vijaya, W/o.Thanakodi, No.160, Main Road, Nalliah, Nallikuppam Post, Panruti Taluk.

¶14

Mrs.Sulochana.R., W/o.Ramu, No.161 Main Road, Nalliah, Nallikuppam Post, Panruti Taluk.

¶15

Mr.G.Rahuraman @ Gopi, S/o.Govidaraja Padayachi, 134, Ner Street, Natham, Kezhlargunatham village Panruti Taluk – 607 105.

¶16

Ms.Sathya,

¶17

D/o.Govindarajan,

¶18

13F, Venugopalapuram West Street, Manjakuppam, Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore Dist.

¶19

Ms.Jeevitha, D/o.Govindarajan,

¶20

13F, Venugopalapuram West Street Manjakuppam, Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore Dist.

¶21

Mrs.Priyanka, W/o.Mr.Rajesh, 134, Killargunanatham Village, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District – 607 101.

¶22

¶23

Mrs.R.Akhilandeswari W/o.G.Raghuraman, 134, Ner Street, Natham, Kezhlargunanatham Village, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District – 607 101.

¶24

Mr.Naveen Kumar, S/o.Raghuraman @ Gopi,

¶25

169, 1^st street, Kelarungunram, Natham, Panruti – 607 105.

¶26

Mr. Arunraj, S/o.Selvaraj, 11, Thaneerthoti Street, Varakaalpattu, Varakkaalpattu Post, Cuddallore Taluk, Cuddalore Dist.

¶27

13.T.Sumathi,

¶28

W/o.Thangarasu, 201, Natham, Natham Post, Cuddallore Taluk, Cuddallore Dist. ... Defendants.

¶29

Counsel for Applicant : Mr.W.S.Jayaprakash. Defendants : Exparte. ……

¶30

ORDER

¶31

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

¶32

of Debts and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.1,03,55,433.19

¶33

with further interest from the date of filing of the TA and by allowing

¶34

¶35

the same to be recovered in various loan facilities from the defendants

¶36

and also by sale of schedule mentioned properties.

¶37

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

¶38

The case of the applicant can be encapsulated as follows:

¶39

The defendants 1 to 6 had availed Baroda Kisan Credit Card facilities and also Jewel Loans by executing necessary loan documents and also the said credit facilities were secured by mortgage of respective properties of the other defendants. It is stated that the defendants 7 to 13 had created security by way of mortgage by deposit of title deeds of the schedule mentioned properties. It is contended that the Jewels pledged with the applicant were found to be spurious and that the amounts so disbursed were not utilized for the purpose for which they were availed.

¶40

It is also stated that the above facilities were availed after execution of necessary loan documents by defendants obliging themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶41

¶42

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 31.03.2015.

¶43

The applicant’s officials had on many occasions approached the defendants requesting them to regularize the account and despite the same, no effort was made by the defendants to get the account regularized over to pay back the amount.

¶44

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 TA seeking recovery of the amount due in the account with further interest and cost.

¶45

Even though the defendants entered appearance they had not filed their written statement and subsequently as the defendants failed to enter appearance, they were set exparte on 29.08.2018.

¶46

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 A138 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶47

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:

¶48

¶49

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

¶50

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶51

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶52

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remain exparte. 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 entitlef to get recovered from the defendants and their assets (including the schedule mentioned properties). The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest.

¶53

In view of the finding as entered above

¶54

i) TA No.571/2023 stands allowed.

¶55

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.1,03,55,433.19 (Rupees One Crore Three Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Three and Nineteen paisa

¶56

¶57

only) out of which an amount of Rs.17,75,465.85 from defendants 1, 4 and 6 to 13; Rs.24,74,739.58 from defendants 2, 4 and 6 to 13; Rs.10,96,002.16 from defendants 3, 4 and 6 to 13; Rs.17,38,735.40 from defendants 4 and 6 to 13; Rs.13,63,558.66 from defendants 4 to 13 and Rs.19,06,932.04 from defendants 4 and 6 to 13; all with pendentelite and further interest @14.60% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of filing of the TA and also by sale of the schedule mentioned property, after deducting all the amounts received and recovered during the pendency of the TA.

¶58

iii) The schedule ‘A’ to ‘G’ properties has to be sold and if the sale proceeds are not sufficient the defendants and their other assets are liable to be proceeded against for recovery of the amount, as aforementioned.

¶59

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.

¶60

¶61

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.

¶62

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

¶63

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

¶64

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

¶65

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

¶66

Bank of Baroda v. Mrs Senthamarai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Mrs Senthamarai

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