Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Ms. Sarita

DRT19 Apr 2025TA/943/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Bank of Baroda's original application for recovery of dues. The defendant, who sought overdraft and vehicle loans, failed to regularize accounts and appeared. The court granted the bank's claim for the principal sum and interest.

What did the court decide?

Direct payment of Rs.45,54,821/- with interest at 12% p.a. within 30 days; recovery from sale of hypothecated assets if not paid.

Bank of Baroda versus Ms. Sarita — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 943 of 2022

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

T.A. No.943 of 2022

¶5

Bank of Baroda

¶6

Jeevan Vikas

¶7

30/31-A, Asaf Ali Road New Delhi-110002

¶8

Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

Ms Sarita, Proprietress of M/s Virasat Cable Network

¶11

1st Floor, 2284/14

¶12

Bagichi Raghunath Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006

¶13

Also at:

¶14

L-2, Parwana Vihar Sector-9, Rohini Delhi-110085 Deiendant

¶15

Present: Shri Vipin Jai, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶16

Date of Institution: 21.05.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 19.04.2025

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 21.05.2019 before DRT-III, Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I, through Sh. Rakesh Kumar Jain, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.45,54,821/- (Rupees

¶19

¶20

T.A. No. 943 of 2022

¶21

Forty Five Lacs Fifty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty One only) as on 17.05.2019 along with pendentelite and future interest @Contractual rate of interest with monthly rests from the date of filing this application till the date of realization along with costs.

¶22

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant, the applicant bank sanctioned Overdraft facility of Rs.10.00 Lacs and Term Loan Facility of Rs.35.00 Lacs under Stand Up Scheme for working capital requirement on 14.11.2017 @10.55% interest per annum subject to change from time to time along with 2% penal interest in case of account becomes irregular against hypothecation of stocks, machineries, book debts covered under CGTMSE scheme. Further, on the request of the defendants, the applicant bank sanctioned Term Loan (SME Vehicle Loan) for a sum of Rs.1,02,000/- (Rupees One Lacs Two Thousand only) @10.05% interest per annum for purchase of 2 TVS Jupiter Scooters on 19.02.2018 against hypothecation of Vehicles.

¶23

In order to avail the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendant submitted Loan Applications and executed Letter of Sole Proprietorship, D.P Notes, Letter of Continuing Security, Letter of Undertaking, Power of Attorney, Letter of Installment with Acceleration Clause, Letter of Authority, Undertaking (CGTMSE), Composite Undertakings cum Declaration, Composite Hypothecation Agreement on 15.11.2017. Further, in order to avail vehicle loan facility, the defendant executed DP Note, Instrument of Hypothecation of Vehicle, General Form of Guarantee, Letter of Sole Proprietorship, Letter of Installment with Acceleration Clause, Letter of Authority, Irrevocable Power of Attorney, Composite Undertaking cum

¶24

¶25

T.A. No. 943 of 2022

¶26

Declaration and Letter of Undertaking on 20.02.2018 with the applicant bank.

¶27

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction and failed to regularize the accounts with the applicant bank. Ultimately, the accounts became Irregular but defendant failed to regularize the accounts and hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶28

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and 5. despite of proper service, the defendant has chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 21.02.2024, the defendant has been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendant.

¶29

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh.Rakesh Kumar Jain, authorized representative of the applicant bank, who has proved the documents as Board Resolution dated 14.11.2017 Ex.AW-1, Sanction Letter Ex.AW-2, Letter of Sole Proprietorship Ex.A-3, DP Notes Ex.A-4 & �^{Letter of} Continuing Security Ex.A-6, Letter of Undertaking Ex.A-7, Power of Attorney Ex.A-8, Letter of Installment with Acceleration Clause Ex.A-9, Letter of Authority Ex.A-10, Undertaking (CGTMSE) Ex.A-11, Composite Undertakings cum Declaration Ex.A-12, Composite Hypothecation Agreement Ex.A-13, Sanction Letter dated 19.02.2018 Ex.A-14, DP Note Ex.A-15, Instrument of Hypothecation of Vehicle rx.A-16,

5d-

T.A. No. 943 of 2022

General Form of Guarantee Ex.A-17, Letter of Sole Proprietorship Ex.A-18, Letter of Installment with Acceleration Clause Ex.A-19, Letter of Authority Ex.A-20, Irrevocable Power of Attorney Ex.A-21, Composite Undertakings cum Declaration Ex.A-221^{Letter of Undertaking Ex.A-23, Statement of Accounts} Ex.A-24(Colly).

¶34

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly approved.

¶35

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the zoplicant bank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

¶36

In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶37

ORDER

¶38

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.45,54,821/- (Rupees Forty Five Lacs Fifty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty One only) together with pendentelite and future interest @12.00% per annum from the date of filing this application till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stock, book debts and 2 Jupiter Scooters etc.

¶39

¶40

T.A. No. 943 of 2022

¶41

In case of shortfal:, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendant.

¶42

The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent (II) to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶43

(III)^{Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery} Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 18.06.2025.

¶44

(IV)^{Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be}

¶45

sent to all concerned free of cost.

¶46

(GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶47

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 19.04.2025

¶48

Bank of Baroda v. Ms. Sarita

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Ms. Sarita

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

Icici Bank Limited versus Prahalad Verma

Hdfc Bank versus Babu Khan

Bank of India versus M/S Gupta Traders

Bank of India versus Dilip Kumar

State Bank of India versus Mr. Daljit Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Neeraj Khullar