Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Rm Enterprises

DRT4 Jan 2024MA/185/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This MA sought condonation of a 212-day delay in re-presenting an Original Application caused by the transfer of the manager responsible for calculations. The Tribunal allowed the application but reserved the question of levying interest for the defaulted period to be decided at the time of issuing the Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

The MA was allowed subject to a condition that interest for the 212-day default period be considered at the time of issuing the Recovery Certificate and recording all proceedings against the bank.

Bank of Baroda versus Rm Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

MA No.185/23 in OASR No.1427/23

¶2

04.01.2024

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 04^th day of January, 2024

¶6

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K. Presiding Officer

¶7

MA No.185/23 in OASR No.1427/2023

¶8

(Edrt -Dy. No.215/2023)

¶9

Bank of Baroda Kodambakkam Branch Rep. by its Branch Manager No.10, First Main Street United India Colony, Chennai – 600 024

¶10

....Petitioner

¶11

-Vs-

¶12

M/s R.M. Enterprises Rep. by its Proprietor Mrs. Rosemary Lazer Ground Floor, Old No.114, New No.135 Pillair Koil Street

¶13

St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016

¶14

Mrs. Rosemary D/o Mr. Lazer No.135, Vinayakar Kovil Street Ambethkar Nagar St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016 ….Respondents

¶15

Counsel for Petitioner bank : M/s J. Ramanathan

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This MA is filed by the Petitioner / Applicant Bank for condonation of delay of 212 days in re-presenting the Original Application after complying with the office objections.

¶18

MA No.185/23 in OASR No.1427/23

¶19

¶20

04.01.2024

¶21

It is the case of the petitioner / applicant bank that the objections with regard to capitalization of penal interest was duly contemplated to be complied upon and copy of OA was handed over to the then Manager for preparing the calculation, however due to annual transfers, the then Manager was transferred, due to which the calculations as sought for could not be obtained from applicant bank and re-presented within the time granted by this Tribunal. Hence, there was delay in processing the returns and the OA was re-presented with a delay of 212 days and petitioner bank prayed for condonation of the same.

¶22

On perusal of records, it is seen that this is an OA filed for recovery of a total sum of Rs.37,80,322.66p due in respect of Overdraft facility together with future interest at the rate of 14.65% p.a. with monthly rests from defendants. It is not explained anywhere in the petition as to how applicant bank will be entitled to claim interest at the contractual rate for the period of delay, which is owing to their inaction and not attributable to any action of the defendants. As the period of delay is on the high side, condonation of the same by levying formal amount in the form of costs payable either to the Library Fund or to any Charity organization as a measure of reprimand would not be justifiable when compared with the levy of interest burden on the defendants for the period of default on the part of the applicant bank for no fault of the borrower.

¶23

However, in the circumstances, this MA is allowed on the condition that the subject of levy of interest for the defaulted period (212 days), which is condoned at this stage of the OA proceedings, shall stand for consideration at the time of issuance of

¶24

MA No.185/23 in OASR No.1427/23

¶25

¶26

04.01.2024

¶27

Recovery Certificate by the progress of the case and the conduct of the case on behalf of the applicant bank till the stage of issuance of the recovery certificate. Registry is directed to put up a note accordingly for consideration of claim of interest for this default period at the time of drawing of the Recovery Certificate in case for an order thereto by

¶28

the Tribunal.

¶29

Registry is directed to number the OA, if otherwise found to be in order.

¶30

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, corrected, signed and processed through E-drt on this the 04^th day of January, 2024)

¶31

Sd/- (GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of Baroda v. Rm Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Rm Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

City Union Bank Limited versus M/S Janata Timber and Saw Mill

Venkatesan Gangadharan versus Union Bank of India

Mrs S Punitha versus Indian Bank

Bank of Baroda versus Prime Infotech

Yesu Gurusamy versus Hdfc Bank

Sampath Kumar versus Indian Overseas Bank