Allowed

Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank) v. K G Jaya

DRT19 Nov 2025OA/421/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Bank of Baroda seeking a Recovery Certificate. The court rejected defenses regarding unauthorized vehicle sale and debt acknowledgments, noting they were part of a loan agreement and statute. A Recovery Certificate for approximately Rs. 67.23 lakh was issued.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 67,23,045.17 with interest at 10% per annum against respondents jointly and severally; execution proceedings initiated against assets.

Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank) versus K G Jaya — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 19^th Day of November, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH

¶4

Presiding Officer OA.No.421/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Bank of Baroda, (Formerly Vijaya Bank), H. D. Kote Branch,

¶7

Mysore District, Rep. by its Assistant Branch Manager,

¶8

…APPLICANT

¶9

AND:

¶10

Smt. K. G. Jaya, W/o. Late A. P. Simon Paul,

¶11

Sri. Sharath Paul, S/o. Late A. P. Simon Paul,

¶12

Sri. Bharath A. S., S/o. Late A. P. Simon Paul,

¶13

All are residing at, Naganahali Village, At Post H. D. Kote Taluk, Mysore District.

¶14

Smt. Kavitha Peter, W/o. Sri. Peter, Residing at No.61, B Nagaroor, Somavarpete, Kodagu District.

¶15

...DEFENDANTS

¶16

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶17

Applicant : Sri. K. N. Mahabaleshwara Rao Defendant Nos.1 to 3 : B- Farma

¶18

OA 421/2022

¶19

¶20

Defendant No.4 : Remined absent

¶21

FINAL ORDER

¶22

The present Original Application in short “OA” has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 67,23,045.17 (Rupees sixty-seven lakh twenty-three thousand forty-five and paisa seventeen only) with further interest thereon and cost from the Defendants.

¶23

It is the case of the Applicant (erstwhile Vijaya Bank, which was later amalgamated with the Applicant) that Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are the legal heirs of the deceased borrower, Sri Simon Paul. Defendant No. 1, the wife of the deceased, has been impleaded as such, and Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, who are the sons of the deceased, have also been impleaded as his legal heirs and co-borrowers along with the deceased.

¶24

The deceased borrower, along with Defendant Nos. 2, 3, and 4 as guarantors, availed a secured loan of Rs. 20,00,000/(Rupees twenty lakh only) for piggery rearing and unit construction. Further, the deceased borrower, with Defendant No. 2 as guarantor, availed an agricultural credit facility of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh only) for piggery rearing and unit

¶25

OA 421/2022

¶26

¶27

construction. Again, the deceased borrower, along with Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 as borrowers and Defendant No. 4 as guarantor, availed an agricultural credit loan of Rs. 10,00,000/(Rupees ten lakh only). Finally, the deceased borrower, together with Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 as borrowers and Defendant No. 4 as guarantor, availed a vehicle loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakh only).

¶28

It is also the case of the Applicant that, in view of the above loan, the Defendants executed necessary loan documents. Despite availing the credit facility, agreeing with the Terms and Conditions for the loans, failed in complying with the same, resulting in defaults and consequentially turning the loan accounts as Non-Performing Asset (NPA).

¶29

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the amount due in the accounts.

¶30

Summons was issued to the Defendants. Defendant Nos.

¶31

1 to 3 entered appearance and filed vakalat, written statements, and evidence. Defendant No. 4 remained absent.

¶32

In the written statement filed by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, they have contended that the acknowledgements of debt, vide

¶33

OA 421/2022

¶34

¶35

acknowledgements of liability dated 18.09.2017 and 30.03.2019, are denied, alleging that the Applicant has intentionally included those documents only to meet the pecuniary jurisdiction. They further contend that although the Applicant Bank had prayed for an order of sale of the vehicle hypothecated to the Applicant Bank, as described in Schedule ‘C’ of the OA, the Bank unilaterally and arbitrarily sold the said vehicle in auction without issuing any prior notice to the Defendants and without obtaining the necessary order from this Hon’ble Tribunal.

¶36

The Applicant led evidence through AW-1, who filed a proof affidavit reiterating the contentions raised in the OA and produced Exhibits A-3 to A-25, which were duly marked in evidence. The Defendants adduced their evidence through DW1, who filed a proof affidavit along with certain documents.

¶37

Heard both side and considered the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and the proof affidavit.

¶38

The following issues arise for consideration in the light of pleading and evidence:

¶39

i) Whether the applicant succeeded in proving the OA

¶40

OA 421/2022

¶41

¶42

claim as against the Defendants?

¶43

ii) If so, to what extent?

¶44

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶45

The Defendant’s contention regarding the

¶46

acknowledgements of debt dated 18.09.2017 and 30.03.2019 is wholly misconceived. The Applicant submits that these acknowledgements are genuine and valid, duly executed by the deceased borrower. They form part of the admissible evidence establishing the existence of the liability and cannot be disregarded. The allegation that these documents were included solely to meet the pecuniary jurisdiction is baseless and deserves to be rejected.

¶47

The Defendant’s contention that the Applicant Bank unilaterally and arbitrarily sold the vehicle is wholly without merit. The Applicant Bank, being a secured creditor, had the right to sell the hypothecated vehicle in accordance with the provisions of the loan agreement and the Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002, due to the Defendant’s default in repayment. Furthermore, no challenge to the said sale has been brought before any competent authority. Accordingly, the allegation of arbitrariness or noncompliance is entirely baseless and deserves to be rejected.

¶48

OA 421/2022

¶49

¶50

The Applicant’s evidence remains unrebutted and is therefore deemed to be proved. In their written statement and evidence, the Defendants have admitted the availment of credit facilities from the Applicant Bank. Although the Defendants filed evidence through DW-1, they failed to adduce any relevant or supportive documents to substantiate their contentions. Defendant Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are the legal heirs of the deceased borrower, and Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are also borrowers to respective loans. Consequently, Defendant No. 1 is liable only to the extent of the estate inherited from the deceased borrower.

¶51

The Applicant Bank, on the other hand, has adduced comprehensive evidence and produced all relevant documents to establish the availment of the loan facilities by the Defendants, which have been duly exhibited and marked as Exhibits A-3 to A- 25. The documents produced by the Applicant are admissible and sufficient to prove the claims made in the OA.

¶52

Further, as stated in the evidence affidavit filed by the Applicant, the hypothecated vehicle has been sold, and a sum of Rs. 4,42,000/- was realized. Out of this amount, Rs. 2,54,594.33

¶53

OA 421/2022

¶54

¶55

was adjusted towards the vehicle loan, thereby closing the vehicle loan account. The remaining amount of Rs. 1,87,405.67 has been adjusted towards other outstanding loan accounts. Accordingly, there is no claim pending in respect of the vehicle loan

¶56

Hence in view of the above findings this Tribunal comes

¶57

to the conclusion that the OA is liable to be allowed.

¶58

The OA has been filed within the period of limitation.

¶59

Taking into consideration the fact that the loan is availed by the Defendant for business purpose and also the fact that OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, pendente lite and future interest is awarded at 10.00% (simple). The prayer for interest with monthly rests and for penal interest for the future period is hereby declined.

¶60

In the result, OA.No.421/2022, is allowed,

¶61

i) The Applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum

¶62

of Rs. 67,23,045.17 (Rupees sixty-seven lakh twenty-three thousand forty-five and paisa seventeen only) consisting of:

¶63

a) Rs. 39,68,013.90 (Rupees thirty-nine lakh sixty-eight

¶64

thousand thirteen and paisa ninety only) form the

¶65

OA 421/2022

¶66

¶67

Defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 along with pendente lite and

¶68

future interest of 10.00% p.a. (simple),

¶69

b) Rs. 16,97,947.23 (Rupees sixteen lakh ninety-seven

¶70

thousand nine hundred forty-seven and paisa twenty-three only) form the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 along with pendente

¶71

lite and future interest of 10.00% p.a. (simple),

¶72

c) Rs. 7,99,259.42 (Rupees seven lakh ninety-nine thousand two hundred fifty-nine and paisa forty-two only) form the Defendant No.1, 2, 3 and 4 along with pendente lite and future interest of 10.00% p.a. (simple),

¶73

from the date of filing of the OA till the realization, from the respective Defendants jointly and severally after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA if any, and allow the same to be recovered by proceeding against the schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties. Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties to the OA be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶74

ii) Since, the vehicle loan closed there is no relief

¶75

is granted against the said loan.

¶76

iii) If the sale proceeds are not found insufficient

¶77

to clear the loan amount due from the respective Defendants

¶78

OA 421/2022

¶79

¶80

jointly and severally, then the Applicant Bank shall be at liberty to proceed against their other assets for recovery of the balance amount due. However the liability of the Defendant No.1 is limited to the estate of the property inherited from the deceased borrower.

¶81

iv) The Applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶82

for which Applicant to file cost memo within seven days from the

¶83

date of receipt of the order.

¶84

v) The Recovery Certificate to be drawn in terms of this

¶85

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶86

vi) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of

¶87

in terms of this final order.

¶88

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶89

in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶90

(Dictated to PY directly on the Computer, after its transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19^th day of November, 2025)

¶91

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

OA 421/2022

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶96

AW-1: Sri. Cahndrashekar M. K., Senior Manager, of Applicant

¶97

Bank.

¶98

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶99

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
A1	--	Applicant Evidence
A2	--	List of Documents.
A3	23.03.2015	Loan Application
A4	28.03.2015	Loan agreement cum hypothecation deed
A5	28.03.2015	Letter of guarantee
A6	26.03.2015	Registered mortgage deed
A7	18.09.2017	Acknowledgement of liability
A8	30.03.2019	Acknowledgement of liability
A9	14.08.2015	Loan application
A10	14.08.2015	Loan agreement cum hypothecation deed
A11	14.08.2015	Letter of guarantee
A12	27.07.2015	Registered mortgaged deed
A13	29.01.2018	Acknowledgment of liability
A14	30.03.2019	Acknowledgment of liability
A15	14.11.2016	Loan application
A16	14.11.2016	On demand promissory note
A17	14.11.2016	Letter of repayment
A18	14.11.2016	Loan agreement
A19	14.11.2016	Letter of guarantee
A20	26.03.2015	Registered mortgage deed
A21	30.03.2019	Acknowledgement of liability
A22	07.11.2016	Registered mortgage deed
A23	--	Certified statement of account
A24	--	Certified statement of account
A25	--	Certified statement of account

¶100

OA 421/2022

¶101

¶102

Witness Examined for the Defendants:

¶103

DW1- Sri. Sharath Paul, S/o. Late Simon Paul, Defendant No. 2

¶104

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants: -Nil -

¶105

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank) v. K G Jaya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank) v. K G Jaya

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

Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) versus Sh. Jagar @Jaggar Singh @Ujjagar Singh

State Bank of India versus Manjit Kaur

Ms Supreme Briquettes versus Hdfc Bank Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Praveen

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Harjeet Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus Raja Ram Mishra