Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Balasubramanian D

DRT20 Feb 2024TA/300/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application for issuance of a Recovery Certificate. The applicant bank proved its non-performing agricultural loan accounts. The respondents failed to appear. The court decreed the claim with 8% simple interest and authorized the sale of mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 20,90,613 with 8% simple interest authorized; sale of mortgaged properties; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Bank of Baroda versus Balasubramanian D — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 20^th day ofFebruary, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

T.A.No.300 of 2023

¶4

(Old OA.No.508/2019-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

Bank Of Baroda Branch, Bharathy Road, Cuddalore – 607 001 …Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Mr. D. Balasubramaniam S/o. Mr. Dhandapani 11/22, Thiru Nagar, Cuddalore 607 001

¶8

Mr. B. Jayachandramurthy, S/o. Bangaru, Keelazhinjipattu Village, Reddichavadi Post, Cuddalore Taluk …Defendants Counsel for Applicant : M/s.Raju. O.F. Defendants : Exparte ……

¶9

ORDER

¶10

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

¶11

And Bankruptcy Act,1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for a total sum of Rs.20,90,613/- in the two credit facilities

¶12

i.e. Rs. 9,08,045/- under the Agricultural Cash Credit Loan A/c and Rs. 11,82,568/- under the Agricultural Term Loan A/calong with

¶13

¶14

future interest and costsand for sale of schedule mentioned properties.

¶15

The above Original Application is filed before the DRT-I and stood transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as above.

¶16

The Applicant Bank contends thatan Agricultural Term Loan credit facility of Rs. 4,90,000/- and an Agricultural Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 3,50,000/- were availed by the defendants. It is also stated that the facilities are secured by hypothecation and mortgageof schedule mentioned properties.

¶17

It is also stated that the above facilities were availed after execution of necessary loan documents by the defendants on 08.09.2009, obliging to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶18

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

¶19

Summons was taken out and as defendant D1 and D2 failed to enter appearance, theywere set exparte on 08.01.2024.

¶20

The Applicant Bank let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A27.

¶21

¶22

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration.

¶23

i. Whether the Applicant Bank had proved the TA claim?

¶24

ii. What orders are to be passed?

¶25

Both these issues are decided together.

¶26

1. The Applicant Bank’s evidences remain un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant Bank are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove the TA claim. Hence the Applicant Bank 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 credit facility is for agricultural purpose, pendentelite and future interest is awarded @8% p.a. (simple).Prayer for monthly rests and penal interest is declined.

¶27

In view of the above:

¶28

i. TA. No: 300of 2023 stands allowed.

¶29

ii. Applicant Bank is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.20,90,613/-(Rupees Twenty Lakhs NinetyThousand SixHundred and ThirteenOnly/-)together with future and pendentelite interest @ 8% p.a. (simple)from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendantsand also proceeding against and selling the schedule mentioned

¶30

¶31

properties and appropriate the sale proceeds towards the decretal dues.

¶32

iii. If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amounts due and payable to the Applicant Bank, the defendants are personally liable for all such amounts due.

¶33

iv. It is further ordered that any amount remitted or realized during the course of the proceedings, shall be given due credit to the loan account of the defendants.

¶34

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

¶35

vi. Applicant Bank 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.

¶36

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶37

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

¶38

(Dictated to PA-2, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 20^th day ofFebruary, 2024)

¶39

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

¶40

Bank of Baroda v. Balasubramanian D

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Balasubramanian D

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 Overseas Bank versus M.Rajesh Kumar

State Bank of India, versus Mr.S.Syed Ghouse

Canara Bank versus Mr. C. Prakasam

Idbi Bank versus Sangeetha

Idbi Bank Limited versus M/s.C.K.Traders

Indian Overseas Bank versus Bhuvaneswari