Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Mr. P.Thiyagarajan

DRT30 Nov 2023TA/738/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Transfer Application filed by Bank of Baroda for recovery of a debt based on agricultural loans was allowed. The Tribunal found the claim unrebutted and admissible, directing recovery of the principal and interest via sale of secured assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.15,16,603/- with interest at 9% per annum via sale of schedule property and other assets; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Bank of Baroda versus Mr. P.Thiyagarajan — 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.738 OF 2023 (Old TA.No.94/2019-DRT-I, Chennai) (Old OA.No.586/2017–DRT-III, Chennai)

¶4

Bank of Baroda, Having its Head office at Mandvi, Baroda and one of its Branch known as Arasur Branch at No.73/3-B, Trichy Main Road, Arasur-607107. Villupuram District. Represented by its Branch Manager, Mr.Harish Ramakrishnan.

¶5

… APPLICANT.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Mr. P.Thiyagarajan S/o. Mr. Perumal, No.2/92, Mettu Street, Melamangalam, Valayampattu Post, Tirukkoilur Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶8

Mrs. T.Rita, D/o. Mr. P.Thiyagarajan, No.2/92, Mettu Street, Melamangalam, Valayampattu Post, Tirukkoilur Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶9

Mrs. T.Jamuna, D/o. Mr. P.Thiyagarajan, No.2/92,Mettu Street, Melamangalam, Valayampattu Post, Tirukkoilur Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶10

¶11

Mrs. T.Stella,

¶12

D/o. Mr. P.Thiyagarajan, No.2/92, Mettu Street, Melamangalam, Valayampattu Post, Tirukkoilur Taluk, Villupuram District,

¶13

Mr. P.Boorasamy, S/o. Mr.Perumal, Othavadai Street, Perangiyur P.O., Ulundurpet Taluk, Pincode-607107. Villupuram District. … DEFENDANTS

¶14

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.N.K.Sriraman. Defendants : Exparte.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The above Transfer Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.15,16,603/- with further interest from the date of filing of the TA and by allowing the same to be recovered from the defendants and also by sale of the schedule mentioned properties.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

The 1^st defendant being the borrower and defendants 2 to 4 being the

¶20

guarantors had applied for and availed the following facilities from the applicant.

¶21

¶22

Credit Facility	Amount
Agricultural Term Loan	Rs.3,00,000/-
BKCC Crop loan 1	Rs.1,00,000/-
BKCC Crop loan 2	Rs.67,000/-
BKCC Crop loan 3	Rs.50,000/-

¶23

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.

¶24

Apart from execution of the necessary loan documents, the 1^st defendant had created security by way of equitable mortgage over the B schedule mentioned property. Hypothecation over the movables and crops was created as security for repayment.

¶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 29.12.2014.

¶26

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.

¶27

It is also the case of the applicant that despite repeated reminders and requests. the defendants had failed to make the repayment

¶28

¶29

forcing the applicant to file this TA 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 14.03.2018.

¶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 A47 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. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed as the defendants do not choose to appear and contest the matter.

¶37

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undispute. The evidences put forth by the

¶38

¶39

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 disbursed and the amount as claimed 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 the facility is purely an agricultural one, pendentelite and further interest is awarded at 9% per annum. (simple).

¶40

In view of the finding as entered above

¶41

i) TA.No.738 of 2023 stands allowed. ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.15,16,603/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Six Hundred And Three only) with future and pendentelite interest @9% p.a. (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 and by sale of the property and by sale of tractor .

¶42

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

¶43

¶44

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.

¶45

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.

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

Bank of Baroda v. Mr. P.Thiyagarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Mr. P.Thiyagarajan

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