Allowed

Bamk of Baroda v. S. Indira

DRT25 Mar 2024TA/792/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for a recovery certificate of Rs. 36.58 lakhs. The bank established a loan default by the first five defendants who are jointly liable, while documents showed no personal liability for the seventh to thirteenth defendants who only provided secured mortgage. A certificate is issued for recovery with future interest.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 36,58,804/- with future interest @ 15.25% p.a., and sale of scheduled mortgaged properties.

Bamk of Baroda versus S. Indira — 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.792of 2022

¶5

(Old OA.No.33/2020-DRT-I, Chennai)

¶6

Bank of Baroda Anguchettipalayam Branch Anguchettipalayam, Cuddalore District

¶7

…Applicant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

S. Indira,

¶10

W/o. Somu 62, Pillayar Koil Street, Melakuppam, Cuddalore District – 605 106

¶11

R. Saravanan

¶12

S/o. Ramaiyan 63, Pillayar Koil Street, Melakuppam,

¶13

Cuddalore District – 605 106

¶14

M. Arumugam, S/o. Murugesan 125, North Street, AlgmarathukuppamKondoor, Villupuram District – 605 106

¶15

E. Murthy

¶16

S/o. Elumalai 1417 / Mariyamman Koil Street, AndikuppamPanruti, Cuddalore District – 607 110

¶17

K. Harivardhan

¶18

¶19

S/o. Kandasamy 24, Mariyamman Koil Street, Melakuppam, Nettapakkam Pondicherry, Cuddalore District – 607 106

¶20

R. Agilandeswari W/o. G. Raguraman 134, Ner Street, Natham Post, Keelarungunam Natham Village, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District – 607 107

¶21

S. Arunraj S/o. Selvaraj, 11, Thanirthotti Street, Varakaalpattu Village & Post, Cuddalore Taluk & District – 607 107

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

R. Priyanka W/o. G. Rajesh 134, Keelarungunam Natham Village, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District – 607 107

¶25

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

¶26

Sumathi W/o. Thangarasu, 201, Natham, Natham Post,

¶27

¶28

Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶29

Naveen Kumar S/o. G. Raguraman 134, Killarunganatham Village, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District – 607 101 ...Defendants Counsel for Applicant : M/s.E. Vijayaraghavan Defendants : Exparte ……

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The Application is filed Under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of DebtsAnd Bankruptcy Act,1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for a total sum of Rs.36,58,804/-due under the 5 Jewel Loan Accounts along with future interest and costsand for sale of schedule mentioned properties along with costs.

¶32

The above original application is filed before the DRT-I and stood

¶33

transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as above.

¶34

The Applicant Bank contends that 5JewelLoan credit facilities to the tune of Rs. 5,50,000/-, Rs. 5,20,000/-, Rs. 4,45,000/-, Rs. 4,60,000/and Rs. 5,00,000were availed by the 1^st , 2^nd , 3^rd , 4^th , and 5^th Defendants individually.It is also stated that the facilities are secured by mortgage of schedule mentioned properties by Defendants 6 to 13.

¶35

¶36

It is also stated that the above facilities were availed after execution

¶37

of necessary loan documents by the defendants, obliging themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶38

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.

¶39

Summons was taken out and as defendants failed to enter appearance, theywere set exparte on02.11.2021.

¶40

The Applicant Bank let in evidence through AW1, filed proof affidavit in confirmation with the pleadings and got marked Exhs.A1 to A43.

¶41

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration.

¶42

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

¶43

ii. What orders are to be passed?

¶44

Both these issues are decided together.

¶45

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

¶46

¶47

is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal

¶48

interest.

¶49

In view of the above:

¶50

i. TA. No: 792of 2022 stands allowed.

¶51

ii. Applicant Bank is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.36,58,804/-(RupeesThirty Six Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Four Only/-)together with future and pendentelite interest @ 15.25% p.a. (simple) on Rs. 8,13,321/from D1, @ 15.25% p.a. (simple) on Rs. 7,68,662/- from D2, @ 15.25% p.a. (simple) on Rs. 6,57,883/- from D3, @ 15.25% p.a. (simple) on Rs. 6,80,040/- from D4, @ 15.25% p.a. (simple) on Rs. 7,38,898/- from D5,from the date of filing of the TA till realization and also proceeding against and selling the schedule mentioned propertiesmortgaged by D6 to D13 and appropriate the sale proceeds towards the decretal dues.

¶52

iii. If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amounts due and payable to the Applicant Bank, thedefendantsD1 to D5 are personallyliable for all such amounts due in their respective Loan Accounts.However, from the documents produced, it is evident that there exists no personal liability on defendants 6 to 13.

¶53

¶54

iv. It is further ordered that any amount remitted or realized during the course of the proceedings, shall be given due credit to the loan accounts of the defendant.

¶55

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

¶56

vi. 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.

¶57

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.

¶58

(Dictated to PA-2, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this25^th day of March, 2024)

¶59

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

¶60

PRESIDING OFFICER DRT–II, CHENNAI

¶61

Bamk of Baroda v. S. Indira

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bamk of Baroda v. S. Indira

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus Muthukumar

Bank of Baroda versus . G. Rajesh

Indian Bank versus Nageswaran