Allowed

Bank of Baroda, v. T.Sumathi

DRT1 Feb 2024TA/451/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bank of Baroda applied for a recovery certificate under the RDB Act for a TN liability of ₹29.50 lakhs. DRT found applicant's evidence un-rebutted, debt proven within limitation, and awarded recovery of principal with interest from scheduled properties and defendant assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued enabling realization of ₹29,50,834 with interest @14.35% p.a. from defendants' assets and scheduled properties.

Bank of Baroda, versus T.Sumathi — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 1^st day of February, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

T.A.No.451 of 2022

¶5

(Old OA.No.778/2019-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

Bank of Baroda, Anguchettipalayam Branch, Anguchettipalayam, Cuddalore District.

¶7

… Applicant. Vs.

¶8

T.Sumathi,

¶9

W/o.Thangarasu, 113, Kovil Street, Keezharugunam, Natham, Panruti Taluk,

¶10

Cuddalore District – 607 106.

¶11

T.Bhuvaneswari, W/o.Tamilselvam, 6/5, Pillaiyarkoil Street, Mela Kuppam, Nallathur, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District – 607 106.

¶12

R.Agilandeswari, W/o.G.Raguraman, 134, Ner Street, Natham (Post), Keezharugunam, Natham Village, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District – 607 106.

¶13

S.Arulraj, S/o.Selvaraj, 11, Thanirthotti Street, Varakaalpattu, Varakaalpattu (Post), Cuddalore Taluk & District.

¶14

G.Jeevitha, D/o.Govindarajan, 13, Ward 10, Venugopalapuram West Street, Cuddalore District.

¶15

¶16

G.Sathya,

¶17

D/o.Govindarajan, 13, Ward 10, Venugopalapuram West Street, Cuddalore District.

¶18

Naveen Kumar, S/o.Gopu @ Raguram, 134, Ner Street, Natham (Post), Keezharugunam, Natham Village, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District. … Defendants.

¶19

Counsel for Applicant : Mr.E.Vijayaraghavan. Defendants : Exparte.

¶20

ORDER

¶21

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

¶22

And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs.29,50,834/-due in the two credit facilities of Jewel Loan and a BKCC Crop loan availed by the defendants.

¶23

The Applicant contends that a credit facility of Rs.7,70,000/- was availed by 1^st defendant as gold loan and the 2^nd defendant had availed a BKCC loan for Rs.7,50,000/- and a Jewel loan for Rs.5,00,000/-. It is also stated that the facility is secured by mortgage of schedule mentioned properties.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

the defendants pay back the amount failed forcing the Applicant to

¶27

file this Application.

¶28

Summons was taken out and as the defendants failed to appear they were set exparte on 09.03.2020.

¶29

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A30.

¶30

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶31

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

¶32

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶33

Both these issues are decided together.

¶34

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. It is also stated that the facilities had been mis-utilized resulting criminal proceedings. Hence rate of interest is allowed as prayed for.

¶35

In view of the above

¶36

i) TA No.451 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶37

ii) Applicant is permitted to realize an amount of Rs.29,50,834/(Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Fifty Thousands Eight Hundred

¶38

¶39

and Thirty Four only) with interest @14.35% p.a. on Rs.11,28,803/- from defendants 1 and 3 to 7 and @14.35% p.a. on Rs.18,22,031/- from defendants 2 and 3 to 7 and from their assets from the date of filing of the TA till realization after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶40

iii) 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.

¶41

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

¶42

v) Applicant is allowed to realize cost of the proceeding for which cost memo is to be filed in 7 days’ time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 1^st day of February, 2024)

¶46

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

¶47

Bank of Baroda, v. T.Sumathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda, v. T.Sumathi

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 Venkatasamy

Bank of Baroda, versus Mrs. R. Subbulakshmi

State Bank of India versus Mrs.a.Kumari

Bank of India versus M/S Yalla Industrial Enterprises

State Bank of India versus R.Virupaksha

M/s Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited Limited versus Kasim Energy Resources Pvt. Ltd.