Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an ex-parte original application filed by Bank of India against Rafiqul Islam for recovery of dues from cash credit and term loan accounts, determining the debt and directing issuance of a recovery certificate.
Allowed OA, debt determined, issued Recovery Certificate under Section 19(22) RDB Act for recovery of Rs. 43,74,412.25 with interest.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
l
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III KOLKATA pRESENTT _SRI KAMAL DE.
PRESIOING OFFICER.
O.A. No. 119 OF 2022.
DATE OF DELMRY OF ORDER I OTIOS/2O24
Bank of lndia, a body corporate constituted under the Bankjng Companies (Acqujsition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and t"ring-ii. l-t'"uj offi." ut "Star House", C-5, Blockrc,, Bandra Kurta Comptex, Bandra lturi;, llr.L|_+OOOSf and carrying on banking business, inter_alia, at Sarat Bose nouO'g_n.il'ze, su.ut Bose Road,p.S. Ba ygunge, District: 24 parganas (South), xokaL-IOOOZO, *ithn the jurisdiction of this Ld, Tribunal.
Applicant Bank.
-Versus
Defendant.
Counsel for the Applicant Bank:
Pradip Kumar Sal, Advocate,
Set ex-parte on
24/04/2024
JUDGEIYENT
The Applicant Bank fited the present O.A. being No. O.A./t1g/2022 on 04/03/2022 fol recovery of a total sum of Rs. 43,74,412.25l_ (Rupees forty three lakh seventy foLrr thousand four hundred twelve and paisa twenty five only) from the Defendants towards Cash Credit and Term Loan together with interest, cost and other usual reljets.
The Defendants are served with summons. The defendants did not appear, as there was no representation from the defendants, the case was fixed for ex_parte hearing on 24/04/2024, and heard ex-parte accordingly.
5.
The point that arises for consideration is:
Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled to the claim madein the OA againstthe Defendants and OA scheduleproperties asprayed for?
As stated supra, the Defendant remained absentand did not turn up to controvertthe version of the O.A. of Applicant Bank. The EvidenceAffidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exhibits Annexure-Ato Exhibit Annexure-A-50 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank, established the claim ofthe ApplicantBank againstthe Defendants and oA scheduleproperties. Hence, I hold that theDefendantsare jointlyand severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank the claims made in theoA with future interest and costs.
In the result, thepresent Original Applicationis allowedex-parte withcosts, as under:-
ORDER
-.I
Accordingly, the OriginalApplication beingO.A No 119 of 2022is allowedandstands disposed of,
Copy of the ludgement/Final Orderbe uploaded in the Tribunal's website.
File is consigned to the Record Room.
(Didated to steno, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on the 7rh day of Play,2024)
( KAIYAL DE ) PRESIDING OFFICER,
Debts Recovery Tribunal-3, Kolkata Order Sheet (Continuation)
case No, oA No. fiE ot zOZZ
Bank of India Vs. nafi+rt fstam
Order with signature
Order No.06
Order pronounced (vide sepa.ate sheets).
ot.07 /05/2024
In the result, O.A. No. 119 of 2022 is allowed with costs. Issue
Recovery Certificate accordingly.
( Kamal De )
Presiding Officer
DRT-3, Kolkata
Debts RecoveryTribunal-3,Kolkata Order Sheet (Continuation)
| CaseNo.O.A./ | Bankoftndiavs.RafiqulIslam 119/2022 |
|---|---|
| DateofOrder | Orderwithsignature |
| OrderNo.05 ot.24/04l2024 |
Plesent:. ForApplicant:Ld.AdvocatePradipKumarSil ForDefendants:None |
| ss | TheRegistryhasissuednoticetotheDefendantinterms of orderpassedby thisTribunal.Defendanthasnot turnedup despitethe factthatthenotices have been served uponthe Defendant, Applicantprayedforhearingofthecaseex-parte. Thematterispendingsince2022,Hencerightavailabletosole DefendantforfilingofW.S.andcounterevidenceistobe closed.Itisclosed. TheoAproceedsfor ex-parte.HeardtheLd Counselfor the Applicant.Reservedfororder, Applicant mayfilewrittennotesofarguments. fo07lO5/2O24fotordet. |
| (KamalDe) PresidingOfficer DRT-3, Kolkata |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claimed amount from the Defendants given their absence?
Whether a Recovery Certificate should be issued under Section 19(22)?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bank of India
Rafiqul Islam
Kamal De
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
