Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Praveen Singh Baghel

DRT11 Feb 2025OA/42/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of debt. The defendant failed to appear after notice. The Tribunal directed payment of the principal amount, interest, and issuance of a recovery certificate, while restraining the defendant from transferring assets.

What did the court decide?

Directed payment of Rs. 37,75,973.00 with interest at 10.45% p.a.; issuance of Recovery Certificate; injunction against transfer of assets.

Union Bank of India versus Praveen Singh Baghel — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL : JABALPUR

¶2

(for the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh)

¶3

(Presiding Officer - Hon'ble Shri Ram Niwas Patel)

¶4

Original Application No.^- 42124

¶5

Union Bank of lndia, ARB, Jabatpur (M.P.)

¶6

Appticant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Smt. Praveen Singh Baghet, W/o Shri Sandeep Baghel, R/o Ftat No.-128, Satyamev Jayate Comp[ex, Tehsit High Court, Jabalpur (M.P.)482001

¶9

Defendant

¶10

Counsel for the Appticant : Shri Adamya Bajpai, Advocate Defendant : Ex-parte

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

(oateA : t ilFreUruary,2025)

¶13

The Applicant-Bank has fited the present Original Application u/s 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act on 14/17123 against the Defendant for recovery of Rs. 37,25,973.00^(Rupees Thirty Seven Lakh, Twenty Five Thousand, Nine Hundred and Seventy Three onty) atong with interest and other reliefs as stated.

¶14

The brief facts of the case are that on the request^of Defendant, the Appticant Bank sanctioned Housing Loan^(TL) of Rs. 33.60 Lakh on 01 101 119 and in consideration of the same the Defendantⁱⁿ addition to execution of loan documents has atso created equitable mortgage over the immovabte property, i.e., Residentiat Ftat No.-211,^2nd Ftoor, Mohit Skyline Situated at Mouza Tithari NB No.-24, PH No.-33, New^23, RNM Jabatpur-2, Khasra No.-270l1, 27013,26911,28611,256/2 & 787 11, new 286/4, 270/7, Layout Ptot No.-1, 2, 3, 4, Veerangna Rani Awantibai Ward No.-67, Tehsit & District-Jabalpur M.P., super-built up area 1550 sq.ft. and undivided Ptot 546.23 sq.ft. The Defendant avaited the Housing^Loan (TL) but faited to liquidate the outstanding dues despite issuance of Demand Notice dated 01 111 /21 and Possession Notice dated 18/01 122 under the Securitisation Act by the Applicant Bank. The Appticant-Bank has relied upon the documents at Ex. A-1 to A-'15 which were^proved by Shri Mohan Kumar, Branch Manager.

¶15

¶16

oL42t24

¶17

Despite service of notice, the Defendant neither appeared^nor fited written statement. She was^{proceeded ex-partevide order dated} 02/07 124. There is therefore, no reason to disbelieve^{the contentionsof the} Bank. Considering the facts of the case, I opine that the Defendant is liabte to pay the ctaim amount together with interest and costs.^{The Appticant-} Bank in its application has claimed interest @10.45y"^p.a. with monthty^rests. However, I feel it fair and reasonabte to^grant interest @10.45%^p.a. simpte pendentelite and future ti[[ realization of the dues. The mortgaged property is Uabte to be sold for recovery of amount due atong with the^personal properties and assets of the Defendant.

¶18

The Original Application is attowed and it is ordered as under-

¶19

i) The Defendant do pay Rs. 37,75,973.00 (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakh, Twenty Five Thousand, Nine Hundred and Seventy Three onty) together with pendentelite and future interest @10.45%^per annum simple from the date of fiting of the OA, i.e., 14/12123, with costs til[ its reatization.

¶20

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

¶21

iii) A Recovery Certificate be issued uls 19(221 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act. The applicant bank may file a memo of cost within 7 days for preparing Recovery Certificate.

¶22

Judgment pronounced in the open court on this 11th Day of February,2025.

¶23

.L
lwa ateI )\'
Presidinq Officer

Union Bank of India v. Praveen Singh Baghel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Praveen Singh Baghel

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

Bank of India versus Dhannu Pariwale

Bank of Baroda versus Prakash Trading Co.

Shri Sharad Jetha versus Icici Bank Limited

Central Bank of India versus Rajesh Babu

Union Bank of India versus Tejpal Singh Rana

Icici Bank Limited versus Vishnu Prasad