Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/s Sarashvathi Hallow Bricks

DRT29 Dec 2023TA/674/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte recovery application under the RDB Act, the Tribunal allowed the bank's claim for loan dues from a PMEGP borrower who defaulted. The court reduced compound interest to simple interest at 9% p.a. and directed the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Applicant permitted to recover aggregate sum of Rs.26,59,153.06p with simple interest at 9% p.a. and costs; Recovery Certificate to be issued.

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Sarashvathi Hallow Bricks — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 29^th day of December, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

TA No.674 of 2023

¶5

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.513 of 2019 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.674 of 2023)

¶6

Bank of Baroda Alangayam Branch Rep. by its Chief Manager 30, Dharmarajapuram Alangayam – 635 701 …Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Sarashvathi Hallow Bricks Rep. by its Proprietrix

¶9

Mrs. S. Saraswathy Periyavellakuttai Village Vellakuttai Post, Vaniyambadi Taluk Vellore District – 635 752

¶10

Mrs. S. Saraswathy W/o Subramani Periyavellakuttai Village Vellakuttai Post, Vaniyambadi Taluk Vellore District – 635 752 …Defendants

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant Bank : Mr. S. Pandurangan Defendants : Ex- parte

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of an aggregate sum of Rs.26,59,153.06p comprising a sum of Rs.9,67,621,58p together with interest at the rate of 12.50% per annum with monthly rests being the amount due under Term Loan Account No.11490600005778; a sum of

¶14

¶15

Rs.8,16,531,48p together with interest at the rate of 12.50% per annum with monthly rests being the amount due under Cash Credit Account No.11490500005768 and a sum of Rs.8,75,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12.50% per annum with monthly rests being the amount due under PMEGO Subsidy Margin linked Account No.11490600005914 from the date of filing of the application till the date of realization in full along with costs of this application.

¶16

The above Original Application is filed before DRT-I Chennai and stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as above.

¶17

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

¶18

The 1^st represented by it Proprietrix carrying on the business of manufacture of hollow bricks approached the applicant bank for grant of credit facilities under Prime Ministers Employment Generation Programme through K.V.I.B and the applicant considering the said request vide sanction letter dated 9.9.2016 sanctioned Cash Credit Loan of Rs.7,22,000/- and Term Loan of Rs.16,53,000/for purchase of machineries. The defendants executed necessary loan and security documents on 14.9.2016 . It is stated that at the request of the 1^st defendant by application dated 26.09.2016 for payment of Government subsidy of Rs.8,75,000/- against bank’s finance sanctioned under the Prime Minister Employment Generation Programme of KVIC and the amount was released by the bank on 1.3.2017 to the defendants.

¶19

¶20

It is further stated that even though the defendant had obliged to repay the amount promptly and regularly, but failed to do so resulting in default in repayment and hence the account was classified as NPA on 27.09.2018.

¶21

It is contended by the applicant that 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 or to pay back the amount. It is stated that as no repayment was forthcoming despite repeated request the applicant issued legal notice on 17.12.2018.

¶22

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests the defendant 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 costs.

¶23

It is the further case of the applicant that the defendants remained absent and hence set ex-parte on 23.10.2019.

¶24

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who had sworn to a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleading in the OA and also produced Exhibits A-1 to A-18 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶25

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit.

¶26

¶27

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: -

¶28

(i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the defendants?

¶29

(ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶30

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶31

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remained ex-parte. 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 OA is outstanding in the account, which the applicant is entitled to get recovered from the defendants and their assets. The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest.

¶32

In view of the fact that the subject loan is a loan under PMEGP and the applicant has charged interest at contractual rates till the date of filing and further as the interest rates have come down the Tribunal is inclined to reject the interest with monthly rests and award simple interest at reduced rates.

¶33

In view of the afore mentioned discussions, the only conclusion this Tribunal can draw is that the applicant had clearly proved the disbursement of the loan, which the applicant is entitled to realize. Hence, TA is disposed off in the following manner: -

¶34

¶35

(a) TA No.674 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶36

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize an aggregate amount of Rs.26,59,153.06p with future and pendentelite interest @9% p.a., simple from the defendants jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the OA till realization, after deducting all the amounts received by them during the pendency of OA, and also by selling the other assets of the defendants.

¶37

¶38

(d) Applicant is permitted to realize cost of the proceedings and shall file cost memo within 7 days from the date of the order.

¶39

(e) The Recovery Certificate shall be drawn up and issued to the Recovery Officer in terms of this final order.

¶40

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶41

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 29^th day of December, 2023)

¶42

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

¶43

Bank of Baroda v. M/s Sarashvathi Hallow Bricks

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/s Sarashvathi Hallow Bricks

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 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

State Bank of India versus Venkatasamy

Bank of Baroda, versus Mrs. R. Subbulakshmi

State Bank of India versus Mrs.a.Kumari