Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Ms Jay Baba Lokenath Stores and Ors.

DRT6 Aug 2024OA/153/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte application filed by Bank of Baroda for recovery of a term loan, the Tribunal allowed the claim against absent defendants, determined the debt with future interest, and directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate under Section 19(22) of the RDB Act, 1993.

What did the court decide?

Recovery order for Rs. 61,71,613.37 with pendentelite and future interest, injunction on property alienation, and recovery certificate issued.

Bank of Baroda versus Ms Jay Baba Lokenath Stores and Ors. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE DEBTS^{RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-IIIKOLKATA} PRESENT : - SRI KAMAL^DE

¶3

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

O.A. No. 153 of 2022

¶5

DATE OF DELIVERY^{oF ORDER| 6loal2024}

¶6

BANX OF BARODA, a^{body corporateconstituted in termsof Section Iof the} Banking Companies^{(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)Act, 1970,havingits} Head Omce at Baroda^{Bhawan,R C DuttaRoad, Alkapuri,Vadodara - 390007'} Gujarat and carrying^{on EankingBusinessat its Branch Officeat 172, Mahatma} Gandha Road, Kolkata -^{7OOOO7,P.S. BurraBazar,commonly known as M G Road} Branch, hereinafter^{referredas the "Applicant Bank",within the jurisdiction of this} Learned Tribunal.

¶7

Applicant Bank

¶8

-VerSus-

¶9

,.{/s Jay Bab. Lokenath Stor$,^{167, N. S. Road,16/A,RajaKatra,Kolkata-} 700007

¶10

2, Siddhl Kumar Slngh,^{son of Mr. ShreeniwashSingh, Partnerand Guarantor of} M/s Jay Baba Lokenath^{stores,167, N. S. Road,16/A, RajaKatra,Kolkata -} 7oOOO7 and residing^{at Flat No. J, 3d Floor, Block - c5,35,Lawrencestreet,} (Now R. S. verma Road), P.O. & P.S.^{- Uttarpara, Hooghly} -⁷¹²²⁵⁸

¶11

Rahlsh Kum.r Slngh,^{sonof Mr. ShreeniwashSingh,Partnerand Guarantorof} M/s Jay Baba Lokenath^{stores, 167, N. S. Road,16/A, Raja Katra,Kolkata-} 7oooo7 and reslding^{at Flat No. D 1o/A, 35, Lawrence Street, UttarparaKotrung'} Uttarpara, HooghlY -⁷¹²²⁵⁸

¶12

residing at Flat^{No. J,3'd Floor,}

¶13

1. Smt. Rlna Slngh,^{wife of SiddhiKumar Singh,} Block - C5, 35,^{Lawrence Street, (NowR. S'} Verma Road), P.O. &^P,S,- Uttarpara, Hooghly^{- 712258}

¶14

... Defendants

¶15

counsel for the APP|icant^Eank: Manoj Kumar Singh,^Advocate

¶16

Set ex_Parte^on 26/0712024

¶17

JUDGEMENT

¶18

The Applicant Bank^{flled thepresentOAbelng No. O'A'153 of 2022on 2410312022 tot} recovery of a total^{sum of [ls. 61,?1,613,371' (Rupeesslxty one lakh seventy one thousand} six hundred thirteen^{andpaisethlrtyseven only) from the Defendantstowards termloan} together wlth interest,^{cost andother usual reliefs.}

¶19

¶20

¶21

The Defendants are served with summons.^{The defendantsdld not appear, as there was no} repres€ntation from the defendants, the case^{wasfixedfor ex-partehearing on 26107lZO24,} and heard ex-parte accordingly.

¶22

The Appllcant Bank examlned 23 documents through Mr.^{Pabitra Mallick, chief Manager,} marked as Exhlbit Annexure - A to Exhiblt Annexure - A/22.

¶23

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Appllcant Bank.

¶24

The point that arises for consideration is :

¶25

Whether the Applicant Bank ls entltled to the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA schedule propertles as prayed for?

¶26

As stated supra, the Defendant .emained absent and did not turn up to controvert the version of the O.A. of Applicant Bank. The Evidence Affidavit coupled wlth the recitals in the documents viz., Exhibit Annexure - A to Annexure - A,/22, marked on behalf of the Apglicant aank, established the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants and OA schedule properties. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are Jotn y and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank the clalms made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶27

¶28

In the result, the present Original Applicaflon is allowed ex-parte with costs, as under:-

¶29

¶30

ORDER

¶31

(1) O.A. No. 153 ot 2022 filed by the Applicant Bank is altowed and debt is determined with cost against the defendants. It is hereby ordered that appltcant bank is entifled to recover from the defendants the total amount to the tune of Rs. 61,71,613.37l_ (Rupees sixty one lakh seventy one thousand six hundred thtrteen and paise thirty seven only) with pendentelite and future interest @ 12,0096 per annum interest with simple on the amount due from the date of f ing of the original Application i.e, 24/03/2022 ti fu and final realization of the claim amount.

¶32

(2) Amount, if any, paid by the defendants in the loan accounts or amount, if any, recovered by the Applicant Bank after filing of the O.A, the same be taken into account while arriving at the exact amount of dues/debt payable by the defendants. Accordingly, pendentelite and future interest shall be calculated on the reduced amount,

¶33

(3) Defendants are debarred from disposing, alienating or dealing with any of the properties belonging to them till the aforesaid decretal debt is recovered from the defendants.

¶34

(4) Defendants are given a time of thirty days from the date of the Judgement/Final Order for repaying of the above mentioned dues, so intimated to them. In case the defendants fail to pay the dues within the above mentioned time, the applicant bank is entifled to recover its dues by sale of secured assets, if any. Applicant bank is also entiued to proceed agaanst personal properties of the defendants (Both movable and immovabte) and also proceed against the defendants personally to recover the dues in accordance with law.

¶35

(s) Let the Ce.tificate of^{Recovery be drawnup by Ld.Reglstra.forthwithin terms of} Judgement for lssuance^{of the sameagalnst defendantsln favourof the appllcantbank} under Sectlon 19⁽²²⁾ of^{theRecoveryof DebtsandBankruptcyAct, 1993 and putup} the same for lssuance of the Certlficate.

¶36

(6) Ld. Recovery Officer shall realize the amount as^{per the RecoveryCertificatefrom the} defendants in accordance wlth law,

¶37

(7) Ld. Registrar of thls Tribunal ls dlrected to deliver recovery^{certlflcateln termof the final} order/Judgement for recovery of the sum agalnst the defendant ln^favour of the Appllcant Bank unde. Sectlon L9 (22) ol the Recovery of Debts due to the Bank and Financlal Instltutlons Act, 1993 now known as Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.

¶38

(8) The parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Omce. on lOlO9/2024 tor tunher actlon ln accordance with law in the event the entire amount is not paid by the said date.

¶39

Accordlngly, the Orlglnal Application belng O.A. No. 153 of 2022 is afiowed and stands disposed of.

¶40

Copy of the JudgemenvFlnal Order be upload in the Tribunal! website. Flle is consigned to the Record Room.

¶41

(Dlctated to strno, transanb€d by her, conected. signrd and Pronounced by me in the open Court on this 66 day of August . 2024 )

¶42

( KAMAL DE ) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶43

so,rl,/

¶44

Debts Recovery Tribunal-3,^Kolkata Order Sheet (Continuation)

¶45

CaseNo.OA^No	Bank-iBaroaara.lay^{BabaLokenath stores& ors'} ^'153/2022
OrderNo.6 ot.6loa^t2024	order^{pronounced(vldeseparate sheets).} Intheresult,O.A.^{No.153of2022 isallowedwithcosts'Issue} RecoveryCertificate^accordinglY,
	(Xam-atOe ) Presiding Officer DRT-3,Kolkata

¶46

Debts Recovery Tribunal-3,^Kolkata Order Sheet (Continuation)

¶47

caseNo.oA/r.	53/2022 ankofBarodavs.Jay^{BabaLokenath Stores &ors.}
DateofOrder	orderwithsignature
OrderNo.5 Dt. 26t07t2024	Ptesent:. ForApplicant:Mr.M KSingh,^LdCounsel ForDefendants:None
som	TheRegistryhasissued noticetotheDefendant^{interms of} order^passedbythisTribunal.Defendant^{hasnot turnedup} despitethefactthat thenotices have been^{served upon the} Defendant. Appllcant prayedforhearingof thecaseex-parte. Thematterispending since2022.Hencerightavailabletosole Defendantforfilingof w.s.andcounterevidenceistobe closed.Itisclosed, TheOA^proceedsfor ex-parte.Heardthe^Ld Counselfor the Applicant.Reservedfororder. Applicant may filewrittennotes of arguments. 1o 6/0812024for order.
	(KamalDe) PresidingOfficer DRT-3,Kolkata

Bank of Baroda v. Ms Jay Baba Lokenath Stores and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Ms Jay Baba Lokenath Stores and Ors.

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

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Medmark Pharma Division and Ors.

Mousumi Dutta and Anr. versus Indian Bank

Amit Bangal versus Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd. and Anr.

Central Bank of India versus Ms Mitra Enterprise and Anr.

Bank of India versus M/S R R Jeweller and Ors.

Farzana Yasmin versus Indian Bank