Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Sri Vijayalakshmi Company

DRT25 Mar 2024TA/185/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application under Section 19(1) RDB Act for a recovery certificate. Unrebutted evidence established a loan default by a proprietary concern secured by hypothecated assets, resulting in the recovery of the principal, pendentelite, and future interest.

What did the court decide?

A Recovery Certificate was issued directing recovery of Rs.23,72,395.17 plus 9% p.a. simple interest from the defendants jointly, severally, and from their assets.

Bank of Baroda versus Sri Vijayalakshmi Company — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 25^th day of March, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

TA.No.185 of 2023

¶5

(Old OA.No.127/2021 - DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

Bank of Baroda, (e-Vijaya Bank), Mount Road Branch, No.1, Club House Road, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. Rep. by its Chief Manager. IFSC Code :BARB0MOUNTR. … Applicant.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s.Sri Vijayalakshmi Company, Rep. by its Proprietor, Mrs.M.Rajammal, Old No.6A, New No.44, Tank Bunk Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. PAN.AJJPR0629N.

¶9

Mrs. M.Rajammal, W/o.Mr.K.Muruganantham, No.12/15, SBI Colony, City Link Road, Adambakkam, Chennai – 600 088. … Defendants. Counsel for Applicant : Mr.J.Ramanathan. Defendants : Exparte. ……

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The Application is filed Under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debts

¶12

And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery

¶13

¶14

Certificate for a sum of Rs.23,72,395.17 due in OCC Loan availed by the defendants.

¶15

The Applicant contends that the 1^st defendant, a proprietary concern represented by 2^nd defendant, its proprietrix availed Overdraft Loan facility of Rs.20,00,000/- under Standup India scheme for the purpose of working capital. It is stated that the said facility was secured by hypothecation of stocks and book debts.

¶16

It is also stated that the above facility was availed after execution of necessary loan documents by defendants obliging themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶17

The Applicant further contends that despite availing the credit facility by obliging to pay back the amount, the defendants failed in compliance of the same and all the efforts of the Applicant to make the defendants pay back the amount failed forcing the Applicant to file this Application.

¶18

Summons was taken out and even though 2^nd defendant who is representing 1^st defendant proprietary concern entered appearance, they did not file reply statement and hence chance for filing reply statement was closed. Subsequently as there was no representation for defendants and they were set exparte on 14.03.2024.

¶19

¶20

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in

¶21

confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A11.

¶22

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶23

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

¶24

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶25

Both these issues are decided together.

¶26

The Applicant’s evidence remains un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove the TA claim. Hence, the Applicant is found to be entitled for the TA claim. The TA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest. Since the claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate which is on the higher side, pendentelite and future interest is awarded @ 9% p.a. (simple).

¶27

In view of the above

¶28

i) TA No.185/2023 stands allowed.

¶29

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.23,72,395.17 (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Seventy Two Thousands Three Hundred Ninety Five and Paise Seventeen only) with future and pendentelite interest @9% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants jointly, severally, personally and also from their assets including the

¶30

¶31

sale of ‘A’ schedule mentioned hypothecated assets, after giving

¶32

credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶33

iii) A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the Recovery Officer to enable recovery of the amounts as per the above terms.

¶34

iv) 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.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 25^th day of March, 2024)

¶38

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

¶39

Bank of Baroda v. Sri Vijayalakshmi Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Sri Vijayalakshmi Company

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

Hdfc Bank versus Kathiresan Kailasappan

Canara Bank versus Mr J Arul

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus Sri Simma Associates

Bamk of Baroda versus S. Indira

Indian Overseas Bank versus Muthukumar

Bank of Baroda versus . G. Rajesh