Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Mr. P.S. Suresh Kumar

DRT30 Nov 2023TA/736/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the defendants' ex-parte plea. It allowed the bank's application for outstanding dues of approximately Rs. 64.92 lakh, permitting recovery at 9% simple annual interest and sale of secured assets. The court rejected monthly rests on interest.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.64,92,197.21 plus 9% simple interest from filing date; sale of scheduled property; cost of proceedings.

Bank of Baroda versus Mr. P.S. Suresh Kumar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 30^th day of November, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TA No.736 of 2022

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.43/2019 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.736 of 2022)

¶7

Bank of Baroda Rep. by its Branch Manager Ramanackenpet Branch Via. Ambalur, Vaniyambadi Taluk Pin: 635 801

¶8

…Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

Mr. P.S. Suresh Kumar S/o Mr. P. Sivakumar

¶11

No.29/2, 2^nd West Cross Street C.N.A. Road, Pudur

¶12

Vaniyambadi Taluk – 635 751

¶13

Mrs. V. Varalakshmi W/o P.S. Suresh Kumar No.29/2, 2^nd West Cross Street C.N.A. Road, Pudur Vaniyambadi Taluk – 635 751

¶14

Mrs. S. Suguna W/o P. Sivakumar No.29/2, 2^nd West Cross Street C.N.A. Road, Pudur Vaniyambadi Taluk

¶15

Mr. P.S. Surendra Kumar S/o P. Sivakumar No.29/2, 2^nd West Cross Street C.N.A. Road, Pudur Vaniyambadi Taluk – 635 751 …Defendants

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (formerly Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993) against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.64,92,197.21p together with interest @11.25% per annum with monthly rests from 20.11.2018 till the date of realization in full along with costs of this application and for sale of schedule mentioned properties.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

The defendants 1 & 2 approached the applicant bank for grant of housing loan for purchase of schedule mentioned property and availed housing loan of Rs.19,00,000/- on 22.03.2007. It is stated that the defendants 1 and 2 executed necessary loan documents on 22.03.2007 and 3^rd defendant executed guarantee agreement on 22.03.2007.

¶23

It is also stated that the facilities were availed after execution of necessary loan documents obliging themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly without fail. Apart from the execution of necessary loan documents, the 1^st defendant deposited the title deeds of the schedule mentioned property with an intention to create equitable mortgage over the same and confirmed the same by executing Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds dated 22.03.2007 registered as Doc. No.1386 of 2007, SRO, Vaniyambadi.

¶24

¶25

It is further stated that even though the defendants had obliged themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, they failed to do so resulting in default in repayment and hence the account was classified as NPA on 31.08.2019.

¶26

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 demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 27.03.2017 requiring the repayment of the amount due in the account.

¶27

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

¶28

It is the further case of the applicant that the defendants failed to enter appearance he was called absent and set ex-parte on 08.05.2019.

¶29

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- 19 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶30

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.

¶31

¶32

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: -

¶33

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

¶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 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 (including the scheduled property). The claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest.

¶37

In view of the fact that the subject loan is a educational loan and the interest rates have come down the Tribunal is inclined to reject the interest with monthly rests and award simple interest at reduced rates.

¶38

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

¶39

manner: -

¶40

¶41

(a) TA No.736 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶42

(b) Applicant is permitted to realize an aggregate amount of Rs.64,92,197.21p 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.

¶43

(c) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the Applicant Bank, the defendants are personally liable for all such amounts due under the Loan Accounts.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

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.

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

Bank of Baroda v. Mr. P.S. Suresh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Mr. P.S. Suresh Kumar

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