Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Mr.B.Gunasekaran

DRT8 Feb 2024TA/559/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed a transfer application filed by Bank of Baroda against borrowers and a guarantor. Finding evidence un-rebutted, the court directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs. 15.95 lakhs with interest and ordered sale of mortgaged schedule properties to satisfy the dues.

What did the court decide?

Allowed TA No. 559 of 2023; Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 15,95,590/- plus interest %7.5% p.a.; Schedule property to be sold; Proceeds to be applied towards dues.

Bank of Baroda versus Mr.B.Gunasekaran — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 8^th day of February, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

T.A.No.559 of 2023

¶4

(Old OA.No.207/2019-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

Bank of Baroda, Represented by its Chief Manager, Aminjikarai Branch, No.703, P.H.Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029. … Applicant. Vs.

¶6

Mr.B.Gunasekaran, S/o.Balakrishnan, Flat No.F1, No.42, 1^st Floor, Munusamy Street, Venkatesan Nagar, Virugambakkam, Chennai – 600 092.

¶7

Mrs.G.Jayachithra, W/o.B.Gunasekaran, Flat No.F1, No.42, 1^st Floor, Munusamy Street, Venkatesan Nagar, Virugambakkam, Chennai – 600 092.

¶8

Mr.J.Saravanan, S/o.C.Jaganathan, Kavaay and Associate, 233/1, T.H.Road, Lind Floor, Tondiarpet, Chennai – 600 081. … Defendants. Counsel for Applicant : Mr.S.Pandurangan. Defendants : Exparte. ……

¶9

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The above Transfer Application is filed Under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs.15,95,590/- due in the credit facilities of Home Loan availed by the defendants from erstwhile Dena Bank.

¶12

The Applicant contends that a credit facility of Rs.11,00,000/- was availed by 1^st and 2^nd defendants for which 3^rd defendant stood as guarantor. It is also stated that the facility is secured by mortgage of schedule mentioned properties.

¶13

The Applicant further contends that despite availing the credit facility by obliging to pay back the amount in 228 EMIs of Rs.9500/each, 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.

¶14

Summons was taken out and as the defendants failed to appear they were set exparte on 16.03.2020.

¶15

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A15.

¶16

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration:

¶17

i) Whether the Applicant had proved the TA claim?

¶18

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶19

¶20

Both these issues are decided together.

¶21

The Applicant’s evidences remain 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.

¶22

In view of the above

¶23

i) TA No.559 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶24

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.15,95,590/(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Ninety Five Thousands Five Hundred and Ninety only) with future and pendentelite interest @7.5% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants and their assets after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

¶28

v) 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.

¶29

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT

¶30

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶31

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 8^th day of February, 2024)

¶32

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

¶33

Bank of Baroda v. Mr.B.Gunasekaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Mr.B.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

Indian Overseas Bank versus Radhakrishnan

Indian Overseas Bank versus Suns Food Company

Indian Bank versus M/s.Thirumalai Stores

Bank of Baroda versus S.Anjalatchi

Union Bank of India versus Mr. N. Balu

Hdfc Bank Limited, versus Mr. Senapathi Sivashanmuga Devar