due to Covid.19 pandemic. The 1sr defendant is the partnership firm. The 3d defendant is the partner of the 1st defendant and husband of 2nd defendant. The counsel appearing for all the defendants is one and the same. The main contention of the defendants is that the applicant bank charged huge interest and penal interest and hence the OA claim is not correct. Since the defendants are ready to clear the dues, applicant bank is not justified in initiating securitisation proceedings. Admittedly defendants committed default due to Covid.19 pandemic. It is not the case of defendants that they made efforts to regularise the loan account in the post pandemic. According to the applicant bank, it has sent Ex.A9 legat notice dated 17.05.2021 and the same was received by the defendants. There is no whisper of the legal notice in the entire pleadings of the defendants. Though defendants contended that the applicant bank charged high interest and penal interest, they failed to identify the said over charged interest or penal interest in the statement of account filed by the applicant bank. Mere contention without supporting evidence is of no herp. under such circumstances, the Evidence Affidavit of AW.1 coupled with the recitals in Exs. A.1 to A.14 marked on behalf of the applicant bank remains ut nchallenged and un-rebutted' Hence, I hord that the defendants to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the oA claim to the -1 costs. )pplicant bank with future interest and
