Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Mr.M.Suresh

DRT5 Feb 2024TA/665/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the creditor's application for a recovery certificate regarding a housing loan default. The court found evidence un-rebutted, determined admissibility, and awarded future and pendentelite interest at 8.15% p.a. alongside costs. The schedule property is directed to be sold for recovery.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate; recovery of Rs.24,65,427.02 plus future and pendentelite interest at 8.15% p.a.; sale of schedule property if proceeds insufficient.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 5^th day of February, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

T.A.No.665 of 2022

¶4

(Old OA.No.169/2021-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶5

Bank of Baroda, IFSC : BARB0SARCMT, Rep. by its Chief Manager, ROSARB, Chennai Rural Region, No.123, Dugar Towers, R.L. Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. … Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Mr.M.Suresh, S/o.Murugesan PAN No:CGEPS7147E, Flat No.2, Door No.3/18, Plot No.3, Ram Priya Apartments, Vembuli Amman Koil Street, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097.

¶8

Mrs.G.Shakila, W/o.M.Suresh, Flat No.2, Door No.3/18, Plot No. 3, Ram Priya Apartments, Vembuli Amman Koil Street, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. …Defendants Counsel for Applicant : M/s.S.Pandurangan. Defendants : Exparte. …..

¶9

¶10

ORDER

¶11

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 Rs.24,65,427.02 due in the credit facility of Housing Loan availed by the defendants.

¶12

The Applicant contends that a credit facility of Housing Loan for Rs.18,69,000/- for purchase of a flat was availed by the Defendants. It is also stated that the facility is secured by mortgage of schedule mentioned property.

¶13

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 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 24.05.2022.

¶15

The Applicant let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A11.

¶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

7. 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. Since the facility is Housing Loan, pendentelite and future interest is awarded

¶22

@ 8.15% p.a. (simple) .

¶23

In view of the above:

¶24

i) TA No.665 of 2022 stands allowed.

¶25

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.24,65,427.02 (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Sixty Five Thousands Four Hundred Twenty Seven and Two Paise Only/-) with future and pendentelite interest @8.15% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till realization from the defendants after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA.

¶26

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.

¶27

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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 (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶31

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 5^th day of February, 2024)

¶32

Sd./-

¶33

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

¶34

Bank of Baroda v. Mr.M.Suresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Mr.M.Suresh

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

Canara Bank versus Govindarasu

Hdfc Bank versus Mani Sundar

City Union Bank Limited versus Joseph

M/s.Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. versus Mr.Padmanaban

Union Bank of India versus a S Selvam

Canara Bank versus M/s..Kalyani Traders