Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Ms.U.Udhayakumari

DRT30 Nov 2023TA/683/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed a Transfer Application filed by Bank of Baroda to recover an outstanding home loan amount of Rs. 26,40,152.18 with interest. The court permitted recovery from the defendants jointly and severally by selling the scheduled mortgaged property and issued a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 26,40,152.18 plus 9% p.a. interest via sale of mortgaged property; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Bank of Baroda versus Ms.U.Udhayakumari — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 30^th day of November, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA.No.683 OF 2022 (Old OA.No.30/2020–DRT-I, Chennai)

¶4

Bank of Baroda, Anguchettypalayam Branch, No. 116/3, Salem Main Road, Anguchettypalayam Panruti Taluk, Pin – 607 110. Represented by its Chief Manager, Regional Office Stressed Assets Management Branch IFSC CODE: BARBOANGUCH

¶5

… Applicant.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Ms.U.Udhayakumari, D/o.Ulaganathan, 242, 1^st Street, Kellarungunam, Natham, Nellikuppam Post, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore, Pin Code – 607 105. PAN No.ACQPU3755J.

¶8

Gopu alias Raghuram, S/o.Govindarajan, No.169,,1^st Street, Natham, Nellikuppam, Panriti Taluk, Cuddalore, Pin Code-607 105. … Defendants.

¶9

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

¶10

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The above Transfer Application is filed Under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.26,40,152.18 with further interest from the date of filing of the OA and by allowing the same to be recovered from the defendants jointly and severally and by sale of schedule mentioned property.

¶13

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

¶14

The case of the Applicant can be encapsulated as follows:

¶15

The 1^st defendant being the borrower and 2^nd defendant being the coapplicant had applied for and availed a loan for Rs.15,30,000/- from the applicant for construction of home.

¶16

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

¶17

5. Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, the 1^st defendant

¶18

had created security by way of equitable mortgage over the schedule

¶19

property.

¶20

¶21

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 0n 31.03.2015.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

Even as the defendants failed to enter appearance, they were set exparte on 20.01.2023.

¶25

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 A25 and got the same marked as evidence.

¶26

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:

¶27

¶28

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

¶29

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶30

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶31

12 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 stated in the TA 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 facility is a home loan pendentelite and future interest is awarded at 9% p.a. (simple).

¶32

In view of the finding as entered above.

¶33

i) TA No.683 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶34

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.26,40,152.18 (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Forty Thousands

¶35

One Hundred Fifty Two and Eighteen Paisa only) with future

¶36

¶37

and pendentelite interest @9% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶38

iii) The schedule property to be proceeded against and sold and if the sale proceeds are not sufficient the defendants and

¶39

their other assets are liable to be proceeded against.

¶40

iv) A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the

¶41

recovery officer to enable recovery of the amount as per the above terms.

¶42

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.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

Sd./-

¶47

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

¶48

Bank of Baroda v. Ms.U.Udhayakumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Ms.U.Udhayakumari

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