Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. S. Sedhuraman

DRT25 Mar 2024TA/48/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's application under the RDB Act. Evidence proving crop loan defaults was found sufficient and un-rebutted. A recovery certificate was issued for principal and interest against specific defendants jointly and severally, with permission to sell scheduled properties.

What did the court decide?

Issued Recovery Certificate for Rs. 15,65,823/- plus future interest against 1st, 2nd, and 8th defendants; ordered sale of schedule properties.

Bank of Baroda versus S. Sedhuraman — Banking and Recovery | 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

T.A.No.48of 2023

¶5

(Old OA.No.36/2020-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

Bank of Baroda Anguchettipalayam Branch, Anguchettipalayam, Cuddalore District

¶7

…Applicant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

S. Sedhuraman S/o. Seethapathy, 133A, Natham (Post), Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District

¶10

A. Seethapathy 133, Ner Street, Natham (Post), Kezhlargunanatham, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District – 607 105

¶11

R. Agilandeswari, W/o. G. Raguraman, 134, Ner Street, Natham (Post), KezhlargunanathamVillage, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District

¶12

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

¶13

G. Jeevitha, D/o. Govindarajan, 13, Ward 10,

¶14

¶15

Venugopalapuram West Street, Cuddalore District

¶16

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

¶17

Naveen Kumar S/o. G Raguraman, 134, Ner Street, Natham (Post), KezhlargunanathamVillage, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District

¶18

G. Raghuraman, S/o. Govindarajan Ner Street, Natham (Post), KezhlargunanathamVillage, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District ...Defendants Counsel for Applicant : M/s.E. Vijayaraghavan Defendants : Exparte ……

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Application is filed Under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts And Bankruptcy Act,1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for a total sum of Rs.15,65,823/-due under the 2 Crop Loan Accounts along with future interest and costs and for sale of schedule mentioned properties.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

The Applicant Bank contends that a Crop Loan (Baroda Kisan Credit Card) credit facility of Rs. 5,50,000/- was availed by the 1^st Defendant and another Crop Loan (Baroda Kisan Credit Card) credit facility of Rs. 5,20,000/- was availed by the 2^nd Defendant.It is also stated that the facilities are secured by mortgage of schedule mentioned properties by the Defendants 3 to 8. The 8^th Defendant stood as guarantor for both the loans.

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

Summons was taken out and as defendants failed to enter appearance, they were set exparte on 02.11.2021.

¶27

The Applicant Bank let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A21.

¶28

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration.

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

ii. What orders are to be passed?

¶32

Both these issues are decided together.

¶33

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 TA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at agreed rate, which is on the higher side, prayer for monthly rests is declined.

¶34

In view of the above:

¶35

i. TA. No:48 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶36

ii. Applicant Bank is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.15,65,823/-(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty Three Only/-)together with future and pendentelite interest @ 15.15% p.a. (simple) on Rs. 8,06,264/- from 1^st and 8^th Defendants jointly, severally and personally and @15.15% p.a. (simple) on Rs. 7,59,559/- from 2^nd and 8^th defendants jointly, severally and personally and also proceeding against and selling the schedule mentioned properties and appropriate the sale proceeds towards the

¶37

¶38

decretal dues from the date of filing of the TA till realization. However, from the documents provided, it is evident that there cannot be any personal liability on Defendants 3 to 7.

¶39

iii. 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.

¶40

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

¶41

v. 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.

¶42

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶43

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

¶44

(Dictated to PA-2, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 25^th day of March, 2024)

¶45

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

¶46

Bank of Baroda v. S. Sedhuraman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. S. Sedhuraman

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