Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Sh. Amitava Sen Gupta

DRT6 Feb 2026OA/1215/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application filed by Bank of Baroda under Sec 19 RDB Act to recover Rs. 32,77,431.96 from the defendant. The defendant failed to repay a car loan despite notice. The Tribunal granted uniform simple interest at 8% p.a. and issued a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 32,77,431.96 with current and future simple interest @8.00% p.a., issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Bank of Baroda versus Sh. Amitava Sen Gupta — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1215/2024

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 13.09.2024

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 06.02.2026

¶6

Bank of Baroda, a Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act of 1970, having its Registered Head Office at Baroda Bhawan, R.C. Dutt Road, Alkapuri, Baroda-390007, Gujarat and having amongst other branches one such branch at Sector-17-B, Chandigarh through its constituted Attorney Sh. Naresh Kumar, Chief Manager.

¶7

……..Applicant Versus Sh. Amitava Sen Gupta R/o 904, Sohi Heights Gazipur Road, Zirakpur, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab-140603

¶8

…….Defendant

¶9

Advocates:

¶10

Argued by Ms. Kanchan Sehgal, Advocate for the applicant (through VC)

¶11

Defendant already ex-parte vide order dated 10.10.2025

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendant for recovery of Rs.32,77,431.96.00 (Rupees Thirty Two Lacs Seventy Seven Thousand Four Hundred Thirty One and Paise Ninety Six Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Naresh Kumar, Chief Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Board Resolution dated 14.11.2017, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶14

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant had approached the applicant for the grant of Car Loan of Rs.34.80 Lacs vide Loan application dated 03.03.2022, which is Annexure A2 vide to this OA.

¶15

¶16

OA/1215/2024 BANK OF BARODA VS. AMITAVA SEN GUPTA

¶17

The applicant sanctioned Car Loan of Rs.35,22,953.00 vide Sanction letter dated 08.03.2022, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶18

Defendant hypothecated Car namely TOYOTA FORTUNER bearing registration no. PB70H0642, Engine no. 1GDA600924, Chasis no. MBJAA3GS900563650~0222 vide instrument of hypothecation of vehicle dated 08.03.2022, which is Annexure A6 to this OA; Tax Invoice dated 10.03.2022, which is Annexure A9 to this OA; Sale Certificate of Vehicle dated 10.03.2022, which is Annexure A10 to this OA. Registration Certificate of vehicle filed on 19.12.2025 vide diary no. 21151 in compliance to order dated 29.11.2025.

¶19

Documents executed: DP Note, Declaration cum undertaking cum authority, Letter of installment with acceleration clause, Letter of authority to make payment directly to dealer, all dated 08.03.2022,

¶20

which are Annexures A4, A5, A7 and A8 to this OA; Notice dated 18.03.2022 u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, which is Annexure A11 to this OA and Statement of account, which is Annexure A12 to this OA.

¶21

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit of Rs.32,77,431.96.00 which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notice but he did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶22

The defendant was served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and he was proceeded exparte vide order dated 10.10.2025.

¶23

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Naresh Kumar, Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, has been filed.

¶24

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶25

It was argued by learned counsel through video conferencing

¶26

that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had

¶27

3 OA/1215/2024 BANK OF BARODA VS. AMITAVA SEN GUPTA

¶28

gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A12 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was granted to him and for that he had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendant failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account of the defendant was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.32,77,431.96.00 (Rupees Thirty Two Lacs Seventy Seven Thousand Four Hundred Thirty One and Paise Ninety Six Only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts.

¶29

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @9.85% p.a. plus 2% penal interest with monthly rests from 01.09.2024 till the realization.

¶30

The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including nature of the mortgaged property/hypothecated assets, undertaking of the defendant, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @8.00%p.a. the loan account from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶31

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.32,77,431.96.00 (Rupees Thirty Two Lacs Seventy Seven Thousand Four Hundred Thirty One and Paise Ninety Six Only) with costs, current

¶32

4 OA/1215/2024 BANK OF BARODA VS. AMITAVA SEN GUPTA

¶33

and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated vehicle of the defendant in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the dues of the applicant still remain unsatisfied, it shall be entitled to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendant. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law. 12. Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 18.02.2026. 15. Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendant through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal. Dated: 06.02.2026.

¶34

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶35

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Bank of Baroda v. Sh. Amitava Sen Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Sh. Amitava Sen Gupta

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 Sh. Harpinder Singh and Others

Global Educational Trust and Others versus Central Bank of India and Another

Punjab National Bank versus Late Sh. Jarnail Singh through His Legal Heirs

State Bank of India versus Sh. Bhupinder Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Narinder Singh

Bank of Baroda versus Smt. Diksha Sharma and Another