Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. Paremin Bai Verma

DRT22 Jul 2025OA/366/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Indian Overseas Bank for recovery of Rs. 26.38 Lakh along with interest against three defendants. The court decreed payment, restrained disposal of assets, and directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 26,38,821.87 with interest; assets restrained from disposal; Recovery Certificate directed to be issued.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Paremin Bai Verma — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

CONTD. ORDER^. SHEET

PAGE NO

CASE NO

DATE	DESCRIPTION OFTHEORDER	REMARK
oA366t74 22t07 t25	JudgmentpronouncedintheOpenCourtCampat Raipur.CopyofJudgmentbeissuedtothePartiesas perrules.Recordbeconsignedto theRecordRoom. (Ra wa atet) Presidingofficer DRT: Jabatpur CampCourt:Raipur	K^(.sr1- S-,l.or^t".,"-(L_) K+r,u,^ '[f"r(.s

¶5

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL : JABALPUR

¶6

(for the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh)

¶7

CAMP COURT AT RATPUR^(C.G.)

¶8

(Presiding Officer - Hon'bte Shri Ram Niwas Patet)

¶9

Original Application No.^- 366124

¶10

lndian Overseas Bank, Near Dharam Aara Mitt, Gasti Chowk, Bemetara (C.G.)

¶11

Appticant

¶12

Ve rsu s

¶13

Paremin Bai Verma, 01 ) W/o Jagdish Verma, 1, Bhobi Para, Vittage-Kewanchi, Jhat, Bemetara^(C.G.) 491335

¶14

Kaliram Netam, S/o BaLu Ram Netam, Atariya, Vitlage Kewanchi, Bemetara^(C.G.)491335

¶15

Jagdish Verma, S/o Shri Samaru Verma, 1, Bhobi Para, VilLage'Kewanchi, Jhat, Bemetara^(C.G.)491335 Defendants

¶16

Counset for the Applicant :^{Shri Sanjeev Dubey, Advocate}

¶17

Defendants : Ex-Parte

¶18

JU DGMENT

¶19

(Dated : 22"d JulY, 2025)

¶20

l.TheAppticant-Bankhasfitedthepresentor.iginalApplication u/s 19 of Recovery^{of DebtsandBankruptcyAct on 05103124against the} Defendants for^{recovery of Rs.26,38,821} '87^{(Rupees Twenty Six Lakh' Thirty} Eight Thousand,^{EightHundredTwenty Oneand Paisa EightySeven onty)} atong with^{interestand other retiefsas stated'}

¶21

The brief facts^{of the case are that on the requestof} Defendant^{No.-1,the Appticant Banksanctioned Composite Dairy LoanKisan} Credit Card^{(KCCDC)of Rs. 20 Lakh on Zgl}lt21and in considerationof the} same, the^{Defendant No.-1 as borrowerand Defendant No'-2 & 3 as} guarantors in addit'ion^{to executionof Loandocuments have also created} mortgage over^{the immovabte properties'i'e''}

¶22

¶23

oA366124

¶24

i) Agricuttural land located^{at VittageBaiji, KhasraNo'-52, 180/2,} 284/2, 305, 315,^{397, 544,57, 312, 674, 685/4 and 716Vittage-Atariya,} Bemetara, admeasuring^{4.73 Hectares; belongingto DefendantNo"2;} ii) Agricutturat land located^{at Viltage Kewanchi,Khasra No"447,} 455, 1424/1, 142611,^{147612,1427/2, 1430,',1458/3,146312,Bemetara,} admeasuring 2.5'l Hectares;^{betonging to Defendant No.'3.}

¶25

The Defendant No.'1 avaited the^{credit facilityand alsoexecuted} Revival Letter on 02103123 but did^{not maintain satisfactory account.The} Defendants faited to tiquidate the^{outstanding dues despite issuanceof Legal} Notices tastty on 27 103123 by the Appticant^{Bank.The Appticant-Bankhas} retied upon the documents at Ex. A-1 to^{A'12which were proved by Shri} Rajj u Patanwar, Branch Manager.

¶26

Despite service of notice, the Defendants neither appeared nor filed written statement. They were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 20/ 11/24. There is therefore, no reason to disbetieve the contentions of the Bank. Considering the facts of the case, I opine that the Defendants are jointty and severatty liabte to pay the claim amount together with interest and costs. The Appticant-Bank in its apptication has claimed contractual interest @7.45y" p.a. plus penal interest. However, I feet it fair and reasonabte to grant interest @7.45% p.a. simple pendentetite and future tilt reatization of the dues. The mortgaged properties are liabte to be sotd for recovery of amount due atong with the personal properties and assets of the Defendants.

¶27

The Original Apptication is altowed and it is ordered as under-

¶28

i) The Defendants do pay jointty and severally Rs. 26,38,821.87 (Rupees Twenty Six Lakh, Thirty Eight Thousand, E.ight Hundred Twenty One and Paisa Eighty Seven only) together with pendentetite and future interest @7.45%^per annum simpte from the date of fit.ing of the OA, i.e., 05ll}/24, with costs titl its realization.

¶29

ii) The Applicant Bank is entitled to setl the mortgaged as wetl as personal properties and assets of the Defendants for realization of its dues. The Defendants are hereby restrained by means of injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering, atienating or in any way deating with their properties/ assets without first paying the ctaim of the Appticant Bank.

¶30

¶31

oA 366/11

¶32

iii) A Recovery Certificate be issued uls¹⁹⁽²²¹ of^Recoveryof Debts and Bankruptcy Act. The appticant bank^{may fite a memo of cost} within 7 days for^preparing Recovery^Certificate.

¶33

Judgment pronounced in the open court^{on this Day of 22nd July,2025 at} Camp Court Raipur.

¶34

v
,1'
(Ram iwa Patet)
Presidin ficer

¶35

Indian Overseas Bank v. Paremin Bai Verma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. Paremin Bai Verma

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

Central Bank of India versus Shri Madhusudan Singh

State Bank of India versus Kishor Shopping Mall Private Ltd.

Central Bank of India versus M/s Pitamber Filing Station, through Its Proprietor- Shri Anil Kumar Singh

Central Bank of India versus M/S Polytech India through Its Partners Sonam Agrawal , Yashvardhan Agrawal

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Shambhavi Agencies through Its Propreitor Praveen Padmaker

Uco Bank versus Pusha Rajesh Jha