Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Sri Krishna Nand Singh

DRT3 Nov 2025OA/56/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the Bank of Baroda's application for recovery of Rs. 55 lakhs against three defendants who defaulted on a sanctioned credit facility. The court upheld the bank's evidence, costs were awarded, and a recovery certificate was ordered.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 55,03,606.03 plus 12% p.a. interest; defendants to pay within two months; entitlement to sell mortgage and personal properties; injunction on alienating properties; recovery certificat

Bank of Baroda versus Sri Krishna Nand Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

r ;

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT LUCKNOW

¶3

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

¶4

Case No. Original Application No.56 of 2025

¶5

Dated: 03.11.2025

¶6

Bank ofBaroda, having SARB Branch at V- 23, Baroda House, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.

¶7

. . . . . . ..Applicant Bank

¶8

Versus 1. Sri Krishna Nand Singh, S/o Shri Siya Ram Singh, Mo LI(J 151, Sector G, Jankipuram Lucknow-226020. 2. Smt. Arti Singh, W/o Sri K.N. Singh, R/o LI(J 151, Sector G, Jankipuram Lucknow226020.

¶9

Mr. Puli Venkat Vineet, S/o Puli Venkat Ratnani, R/o 19/574, Indira Nagar, Lucknow.

¶10

. . . . . . .Defendants

¶11

Ld. Counsel for the applicant-bank: Mr. Arjun Krishna, Advocate. Ld. Counsel for the defendants: Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate.

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

This Original Application has been filed by the applicant Bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for the recovery of Rs.55,03,606.03/- (Rupees Fifty Five Lac, Three Thousand, Six Hundred Six and Paisa Three Only) together with pendent-lite and future interest, costs and other reliefs etc.

¶14

The brief facts of case :- it is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of OA, the defendant no.3 expired and her husband is already party to the OA. The defendants approached the applicant-bank for grant of

O.A. No.56 of 2025

r ~-'

Credit Facility of Rs.10 lac, which was duly considered and sanctioned by the applicant-bank on 17.8.2006 on certain terms and conditions (Exhibit No. A-2) to this original application.

¶20

In order to secure the aforesaid Cash Credit facility of Rs.10 lac, the defendants had executed and signed various security documents in favour of the applicant-bank like D.P. Note, General Undertaking, Letter of Continuing Security and General Form of Guarantee (Exhibit No. A-3) to this original application.

¶21

Further, in order to secure the repayment of bark dues, the defendants had created mortgage of their immovable property i.e. EMDTD of Plot No.24A, Khasra No.503, Mauja Ganeshpur, Rahmanpur, Pargana &

¶22

District Lucknow admeasuring 2100 sq. mtr., as detailed in the petition in favour of the bank (Exhibit No. A-4) to this original application.

¶23

To avail the aforesaid credit facility> the applicant_bank had opened a loan account in the name of defendant no.lin order to maintain the credit facility.

¶24

6' ABer availing the aforesaid credit facility, the defendants failed to maintain financial discipline and also failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement> consequently9 the loan account of the defendant no.I was classified as NPA on 30.6.2014 by the applicant_bank as per RBI guidelines (EMlibit No.A-5)9 therefore9 the applicant_bulk issued Demand Notice dated 08.7.2014 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAEsi Act 2002 (Exhibit No. A-7), but, the defendants stated no-response and failed to repaY the same and the loan account of the defendant no.1 is still un_ liquidated, hence, this Original Application has been instituted

¶25

O.A. No.56 of 2025

¶26

¶27

As per books of the bank maintained in the usual and ordinarY course of bMing business, an outstanding of Rs.55,03,606.03/- (Rupees FiRY Flve La(..9 Thee Thousand, Six Hundred Six and Paisa Three OnIY) includlng interest upto 02.6.2024 were lying due for payment, which theY did not paY despite repeated requests and demands. The applicant Bank has filed the copy of Statement of Account (ExhibitNo. A-6) to this original application.

¶28

The cause of action R)r filing the present application arose firstly on 17.8.2006 when the abovementioned credit facility was sanctioned by the applicant_bank and necessary documents were executed by the defendants. The cause of action hrt,her arose on 08.7.2014 when the applicant-bank had issued demand notice recalling the defendants to repay the dues of the applicant-bank, but, the defendants failed to pay the same.

¶29

The summons was served upon the defendants. The defendants appeared before this Tribunal through their counsel to contest the case, and filed their WS. Main contention being that bifurcated statement of account was not provided and further the valuation of the property is much more than the debt amount.

¶30

The only point of consideration before this Tribunal in as to whether the bank is legally entitled to the amount as claimed in Original Application on the basis of documents and pleading submitted by it.

¶31

In support of the case Mrs. Anjalee Pandey, Chief Manager of the applicant Bank has supported its case on affidavit.

¶32

On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on affidavit and Exhibit marked as (Exhibit No. A-1 to Exhibit No. A-7 to this original application),it stands proved that the defendants had availed the credit facility from the applicant bank by executing loan and security documents detailed as above in favour

¶33

O.A. No.56 of 2025

¶34

¶35

of the applicant Bank. A perusal of the application, evidence and documents relied upon clearly establishes that defendants had utilized the above loan facility as granted to them. The applicant bank has maintained the Books of account in the ordinary course of banking business showing disbursal of the loan amount. It further shows that bank had regularly credited the amount paid by the defendants in the books of account. The Bank had also charged interest from time to time and the entries is relevant u/s 4 of the Bankers Book Evidence Act. It is also proved that the applicant bank’s claim is within limitation against the defendants, therefore, the defendants are liable to pay the dues.

¶36

Accordingly, the defendants are directed to pay the balance dues to the applicant bank within a period of two months from the date of judgment failing which the applicant bank will be entitled to sell the mortgage property as well as personal properties of the defendants.

¶37

The applicant-bank has claimed interest @15.20% per annum in the above loan account together with pendent lite and future interest on contractual rate till the actual date of its realization and costs. On the basis of the foregoing discussion, interest of justice will be served ifpendent-lite and future interest is granted @12.00% per annum in theabove loan accounts with monthly rest on reducing balance from the date of filing of the O. A. till the date of realization with costs.

¶38

1 find that the bank has proved the execution of loan documents and creation of mortgage in its favour. In the result, the Original Application succeeds against the defendants with costs. The defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the dues of the applicant_bulk and the mortgage property as well as the personal properties are liable to be sold.

¶39

O.A. No.56 of 2025

¶40

¶41

16.It is, therefore, ordered:-

¶42

(1) That the Original Application No.56 of 2025 of the applicant bank for issuance of Recovery Certificate to the tune of Rs.55,03,606.03/- (Rupees Fifty Five Lac, Three Thousand, Six Hundred Six and Paisa Three Only) together with future and pendent lite interest @12.00% per annum in the loan account from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 11.10.2024 till the loan is fully liquidated and costs succeeds and is hereby allowed against the defendants.

¶43

(ii) The defendant no.3 expired and legal heir is already a party to the OA.

¶44

(111) The defendants are directed to pay the dues within a period of two months from the date of judgment, failing which the applicant bank will be entitled to recover the same from the secured assets, personal movables and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶45

¶46

(iv) The applicant-bank is entitled to recover aforesaid amount by sale of mortgage property (if not sold earlier under the provisions of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.1. Act 2002). The amount) if anY, already recovered by sale of mortgage property or otherwise shall be adjusted towards the debt and only the balance amount shall be recoverable. If the dues of the applicant_bank still remain unsatisfied, the same shall be recovered by attachnent and sale of the personal movable and immovable assets of the defendants. The applicant bank shall provide ' details of the statement of account

¶47

0.A. No.56 of 2025

¶48

¶49

(V) The defendants are hereby restrained by means of injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering, alienating or in any way dealing with their properties/estates without first paying the claim of the applicant bank.

¶50

(vi) Let Recovery Certificate be issued immediately u/s 19(22) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 by fixing 20.12.2025 before R.O., DRT, Luchlow.

¶51

Judgment is pronounced in the open court.

¶52

Dated: 03.11.2025

¶53

A \ bN

¶54

(Pravas KU„fdr Singh) Presiding Officer

¶55

(Veeresh)

Bank of Baroda v. Sri Krishna Nand Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Sri Krishna Nand Singh

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Divine Construction

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Geeta Trading Company

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Mr Javed Naseer

M S Balaji Enterprises versus Aryavart Bank

State Bank of India versus Ms Vishal Rice Udyog

Bank of India versus M/S N S Enetrprises