Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. P Gunasekaran

DRT15 Feb 2024TA/346/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT allowed an application for recovering a loan amount of Rs. 39,94,771/- due from defendants who availed Jewel loans with fraudulent pledges and failed to repay, permitting recovery from their assets and scheduled properties.

What did the court decide?

Order to recover Rs. 39,94,771/- plus interest from defendants and sale of scheduled mortgaged properties if proceeds are insufficient.

Bank of Baroda versus P Gunasekaran — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

TA No.346 of 2022

¶6

(Originally filed before DRT-I Chennai as OA No.776 of 2019 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.346 of 2022)

¶7

Bank of Baroda Anguchettipalayam Branch Anguchettipalayam Cuddalore District

¶8

…Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

P. Gunasekaran, S/o. Pachaiappan 16, Koil Street, Keelarungunam Natham Cuddalore District-607105

¶11

E. Manonmani W/o Erusappan 11/56, Chennai Road, Puluvannoor Cuddalore District-607110

¶12

D. Senbagavalli W/o. Devanathan 3/666, Mariamman Koil Street, Rasapakkam, Cuddalore District -607106

¶13

M. Kumar S/o. Mathialagan Colour Colony, Palur, Cuddalore District - 606301

¶14

K. Meniammal, W/o. Krishna Murthy 232, Murugan Koil Street, Keelarungunam Cuddalore & District - 607110

¶15

R. Agilandeswari W/o. G. Raguraman 134, Ner Street, Natham Post Keelarungunam Natham Village Panrutti Taluk, Cuddalore District - 607107

¶16

¶17

S. Arunraj, S/o. Selvaraj 11, Thanirthotti street, Varakaalpattu village & Post Cuddalore-607107

¶18

G. Jeevitha, D/o. Govindarajan 13 F, Ward 10, Venugopalapuram west street Cuddalore

¶19

G. Sathya D/o. Govindarajan 13 F, Ward 10, Venugopalapuram west street Cuddalore Taluk & District

¶20

R. Priyanka W/o. Rajesh 134, Keelarungunam Natham village Panruti taluk, Cuddalore District - 607101

¶21

Vijaya W/o. Dhanakodi 113 B, Natham, Natham Post Panrutti Taluk, Cuddalore District

¶22

Sumathi W/o, Thangarasu 201, Natham, Natham Post, Panrutti Taluk, Cuddalore District

¶23

Naveen Kumar, S/o. G.Raguraman 134, Killarungunanatham Village Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore-607101 …Defendants

¶24

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. E. Vijayaraghavan Defendants : Ex-parte

¶25

FINAL ORDER

¶26

The above Original Application is filed under section 19 of the Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act seeking recovery of Rs.39,94,771/- with further interest from the date of filing of the OA and also by allowing the same to be recovered from defendants and also by sale of mortgaged properties.

¶27

¶28

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

¶29

It is the case of the applicant that the defendants 1 to 5 had availed Jewel loans for Rs.5,40,000/-,Rs.5,30,000/-, Rs.5,70,000/-, Rs.5,10,000/- and Rs.5,50,000/- from the applicant. It is also stated that the respective amounts were released by issuance of cheque in favour of respective defendants. It is also stated that the credit facilities were availed after duly executing the loan documents obliging to repay the amount. It is further contended by the applicant that the jewels pledged by all the defendants for availing the credit facility were spurious and resulting the applicant lodging Criminal Complaints. It is also the case of the applicant that the defendants 6 to 13 who are the beneficiaries of the loan had jointly created equitable mortgage over the A schedule properties, in lieu of the credit facilities availed by defendants 1 to 5.

¶30

It is also contended that the defendants failed to make repayment to the loan, resulting the account being in default and there by living the applicant with no remedy other than to approach this Tribunal by filing this OA.

¶31

Even though the defendants entered appearance through a lawyer, they failed to appear subsequently, resulting in they being called absent and set ex-parte on 9.3.2020.

¶32

The applicant had let in evidence through AW1 who had sworn to a Proof Affidavit in terms of the pleadings in the OA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A42 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶33

¶34

Heard the counsel for the applicant and considered the contention as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter.

¶35

(i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim?

¶36

(ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶37

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶38

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remained exparte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidence put forth by the applicant was found admissible. From the statement of accounts as produced by the applicant, it is evident that the amount as claimed in the OA is outstanding in the account, which the applicant is entitled to get recovered from the defendants and their/ his assets (including the scheduled property) the claim of the applicant is well within the period of limitation and there is no Capitalization of penal interest. Since the case involves fraud the TA stands allowed as prayed for.

¶39

In view of the finding as entered above, the following order is passed: -

¶40

(a) TA No.346 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶41

(b) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs. 39,94,771/- being the total due amount with future and pendent lite interest @15.25% (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization on Rs.7,99,909/from defendants 1, 6 to 13; Rs. 7,83,433/- from defendants 2, 6 to 13;

¶42

¶43

Rs.8,42,874/- from defendants 3, 6 to 13 Rs.7,55,582/- from defendants 4, 6 to 13; and Rs.8,12,973/- from defendants 5, 6 to 13 after giving credit to all the amounts received and recovered during the pendency of the TA.

¶44

(c) The schedule property to be proceeded against and sold and if the sale proceeds are not sufficient the defendants and their other assets are liable to be proceeded against for the recovery of the amount as aforementioned.

¶45

(d) A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the recovery officer to enable recovery of the as per the above terms.

¶46

(e) 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.

¶47

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 6 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶48

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open court, this 15^th day of February, 2024)

¶49

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

¶50

Bank of Baroda v. P Gunasekaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. P Gunasekaran

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

State Bank of India versus v.Jayamoorthy

Uco Bank versus M/s.Ahb Isfa Traders

Canara Bank versus Mr.T.Subramani (Deceased)

Punjab National Bank versus Thirupathy

Punjab & Sind Bank versus Mr. Tagore Sampath Jaikumar a

Canara Bank versus Mr. C. Prakasam