Allowed

Yes Bank Limited v. Munee Devi

DRT6 May 2026OA/141/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Yes Bank Limited for recovery of dues from two defendants arising out of a vehicle loan. The debt was determined at Rs. 55,27,027.32 including interest, and the order debarred the defendants from transferring hypothecated assets for 60 days.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay jointly or severally Rs. 55,27,027.32 with future interest at 13%; debarment from transferring hypothecated assets; issuance of recovery certificate.

Yes Bank Limited versus Munee Devi — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Pagc No.

¶2

KOLKATA DEBTS REGOVERY TRIBUI{AL ilO.² ORDER SHEET (Continuation)

¶3

Case No.

¶4

O.A.1141 ot 2O2S

Yes Bank Ltd.

Munee Devi & Anr.

Oflice action with
Date date and dated
of Order with signature Signafire ol
Order perties when
mocssary
7 Counsel for the parties:
06.05.2026 Mr. Sourav Das, Ld. Advocate representing Mr. Saya
Ranjan Ganguly, Ld. Counsel for the applicant Bank.
None for the defendants.
O.A.1141 of 2025 is allowed and disposed of.
Final Order / Judgment is in separate sheet of S pages.
File be consigned to record room.
Order be uploaded on the Tribunal,s website.
ffinau"an 11
Presiding Ofiicer
DRT-2, Kolkata

¶9

Central Bank of lndia

¶10

¶11

O.A.1141 of 2O2S - ORJ-2tKot

¶12

DEBTS RECOVERY TRTBUNAL - 2, KOLKATA Jeevan Sudha Bldg. 07ttr Floor,42lC, J.L. Nehru Road, Kolkata _7OOO71 Before Shri Arbi nd Madhav. Presidinq Officer

¶13

o.A. No.141 of 2025

¶14

ln the matter of

¶15

Yes Bank Limited, a banking company within the meaning Debts due to Bank and Financial Act, 1993, having its registered office at yes Bank House, off western Express Highway, santacruz (East), Maharashtra - 4ooo55, and carrying on business from Kolkata RSSC, 01st Froor, stephen House, 56E, Hemanta Basu sarani, Darhousie, Kolkata - 700001, through its constituted Attorney, Biswadip Bhattacharjee.

¶16

Applicant Bank

¶17

-Versus-

¶18

1 Munee Devi, daughter of Harirar Ray, residing at Vivekananda pa[y, Karipur, suri, Birbhum, Pin - 731 103;

¶19

2 Ram Brickh singh, son of Lakhi chand singh, residing at Vivekananda paily, Kalipur, Suri, Birbhum,^pin - 731 103

¶20

Defendants

¶21

Counsel for parties: For the Applicant Bank : Sri Sayak Ranjan Ganguly M/s Ganguly & Company, Advocates For the Defendants : Ex-Pafte.

¶22

FINAL ORDER / JU DGMENT Delivered on 06.05.2026

¶23

Applicant, Yes Bank Limited, instituted the present Application being the original Application No.141 of 2025 on 28.03.202s against two Defendants under section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (amended from time to time) for recovery of sum of Rs.55,27,o27 ,32 (Rupees fifty five lakh twenty seven thousand twenty seven and paise thirty two) calculated uplo 16.12.2Q24 with interim interest and interest upon^judgment at the contractual rate, until realization.

¶24

The brief facts of the case as set out by applicant Bank in its Original Application, as under:

¶25

(i) The applicant bank is represented through its constituted attorney, Biswadip Bhattacharjee by virtue of a Power of Attorney dated 19.12.2022, copy of which is annexed and marked as Annexure'A'. The Defendant No.1 being the Principal Borrower along with Defendant No 2 as co-borrower approached the applicant bank for availing redit facility to the tune of Rs.51,89,569.00/- by submitting application form dated

¶26

¶27

o.A.t141 0t 2025 _ DRT-2lKot

¶28

December 23, 2023 at its Durgapur Branch office. copy of Loan apprication Form is marked and annexed as Annexure^,,El,,. Upon consideration of their business projections and past track record, applicant Bank was pleased to sanction the credit facility to the tune of Rs'51,89,569.00 (Rupees fifty one lakh eighty nine thousand five hunctred sixty nine) to the defendants No.l & 2 in the nature of commerciar vehicre roan. on or about 28.12-2023, the defendants No.1 & 2 visited the of appricant Bank and executed roan agreement whereby the defendants No.1 & 2 agreed to pay Rs.51,g9,56g/_ arong with interest @ 13% per annum in 5g EMrs of Rs.1,30,000/- tiil 10th instarment and Rs' 1 '20,495/- from 1^'rth instalment to the appricant Bank. copy of Loan Agreement dated 28'12.2023, bearing No.cVL007601807153 executed by and between the parties is annexed and collectively marked as Annexure ,,C,,.

¶29

The defendants avaired and enjoyed the said roan facirities by opening Account in Bank's Durgapur Branch, Dist.- paschim Burdwan but did not compry with the agreed terms and conditions of said facirities, thus viorated the terms and conditions of the aforesaid sanction. Despite severar requests made by appricant Bank, the defendants did not pay any attention to regularize the Accounts; consequenfly, the accounts became irregular and was classified as NpA. since the defendants / borrower(s) faired to liquidate the dues with the appricant Bank inspite of repeated requests and reminders, the applicant Bank compeiled to issue Notices dated 14.01 .2025 and 19.03.2025 upon the defendants calring upon them to pay of Rs.s5,22,022.32, but the defendants did not comply the said Notice, copy of said Notices dated 14.01.2025 & 19.03.202s are annexed and marked as Annexure 'E'. certified copies of statement of Account along with certificate under Bankers' Books of Evidence Act, along with statement of claim, Annexure 'D', have been filed to show and prove the dues, with interim interest and interest upon judgment at the contractual rate, untir realization, has been prayed. Applicant Bank submitted that their claim in the original Application is within limitation. 4, The notice / summons was sent to the Defendants 1 & 2 by the Tribunal. lt is observed from S/R on affidavit dated 07.11.202s and its enclosures that service of summons upon the Defendants is not successful, such has been recorded vide Ld. Registrar's order dated 04.12.202s. At the request of Ld. Advocate of the applicant Bank, Ld. Tribunal is directed to serve the summons upon the defendants No.1 & 2 by way of paper publication; and Ld. Advocate of the applicant Bank has brought on record the s/R on affidavit on publication dated 17.02.2026 upon the Defendants along with relevant portion of paper cuttings in two newspapers, namely (i)'The tndian Express' in English and (ii) 'Dainik Sfatesman' in Bengali, both dated 02.02.2026, such has been recorded vide Ld. Registrar's order dated 17.02.2026. Ld. Advocate of the applicant bank has filed LA. being LA./6309 of 2026 along with put-up t.A./6308 of 2026 dated 12.03.2026 thereby prays for a direction upon the defendants to close the rights of the defendants to file written statement. The said l.A.s were allowed and disposed of vide order dated 30.03.2026, and as the defendants did not appear nor filed the written

¶30

¶31

¶32

o.A.1141 0t 2025 - ORr_2/Kot

¶33

statement; hence, both the defendants were ordered to be proceeded ex-partevide order dated 30.03.2026. Ld. Advocate of the applicant bank has submitted argument on 30.03.2026.

¶34

Applicant Bank has fired evidence-on-Affidavit, affirmed by Biswadip Bhattacharjee, Legal Manager and Authorized Signatory of Bank,s Kolkata office along with copy of original documents executed by the defendants. original documents have been produced by applicant Bank; the same have been verified with copies of documents annexed with the o.A. and after verification the originals have been returned to Mr. chand Mia, Manager of Bank's Dalhousie Branch office, Kolkata _ 700001 on 17.02.2026' such has been recorded vide Ld. Registrar-in-charge,s order dated 17.02.2026. The documents produced by appricant Bank are exhibited and marked as Exhibits'A-1'to A-8'.

¶35

I have heard the Ld. Advocate for the appricant Bank and perused the records. 6. Evidence-on-afiidavit, filed by applicant Bank, has remained unchailenged, un_ rebutted and its veracity cannot be put to dispute. Applicant Bank has proved the averments made in the original Application. Applicant Bank has proved the sanction of a loan facility of Rs.51,89,569/- through loan application form dated 2g.12.2023. Applicant Bank has proved the hypothecated movable assets - vehicle, described in schedule at page 20 and para 3A at page 7 & 8 of the original application.

¶36

on the point of limitation, the loan has been sanctioned through loan application form dated 23.12.2023, documents have been executed on 2g.12.2023, and original Application has been filed on 28.03.202s. As such, the original Application appears to have been filed well within the period of limitation.

¶37

I' Applicant Bank stated that the outstanding balance in vehicle loan Account (inclusive of accrued interests calculated uplo 16.12.2024) for a sum of Rs.ss,2l,o27.a2 (Rupees fifty five lakh twenty seven thousand twenty seven and paise thirty two) as on 16.12.2024, which is the amount claimed by the applicant Bank in the original Application, and the defendants No.1 & 2 are, joinfly and/or severally, liable to repay the said amount to the applicant Bank with pendente tite and future interest, till realization. I allow the claim as made by applicant Bank in the original Application. Applicant Bank has prayed interim interest and interest upon judgment at the contractual rate, until realization; while at the time of sanctioning of aforesaid loan facility the applicable rate of interest was @ 13% per annum. Therefore, lhe pendente /lfe & future rate of interest @ 13o/o per annum, with quarterly rests, from 17.12.2024, till full andfinal realization of the entire debt, is allowed.

¶38

The matter also falls within the territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The Applicant Bank has proved to claim made in the O.A. The original application be.ing O.A./141 of 2025 deserves to be allowed; hence allowed.

¶39

¶40

O.A.1141 of 2O2S - DRf _2Kot

¶41

10. ln view of the above, I pass the following order:

¶42

ORD ER

¶43

(i) o'A' No'141 0f 2025, fired by appricant Bank, is arowed and debt is determined with cost against the Defendants No.1 & 2. rt is hereby ordered that the Defendants No'1 & 2 are hereby directed to pay, iointly and / or severafly, the totar debt amount of Rs'55,27,027'32 (Rupees fifty five rakh twenty seven thousand twenty seven and paise thirty two) due and payabre, incrusive of interest and other charges as carcurated upto 16.12.2024; and interest for the period pendente rite andfuture @ 13% perannum with quarterry rests, from 17.12.2024, tirr rearization of the entire sum due and recoverabre.

¶44

(ii) Amount, if any, paid by the Defendants in the roan account or amount, if any, recovered by the appricant Bank after firing of the originar apprication, the same may be taken into account whire aniving at the exact amount of dues/debt payabre by the Defendants. Accordingry, the pendente tite and future interest shafl be carcurated on the reduced amount.

¶45

(iii) The defendants are debarred from transferring, arienating, encumbering or disposing of the hypothecated moveable assets; described in Schedule at page 20 and para 34 at page 7 & I of the original application:

¶46

H hecated bleA

¶47

"Loan No: CVL0076O1^gO71 i3 Modet: 5525 BSVI4FULLY BUTLT Registration No: V,ttB S3C 71Bg Engine No:^pDpZl4OgOB Chassr.s No : M B 1 T2V H D6ppDy64SO."

¶48

The Defendants are arso debaned from transferring, arienating, encumbering or disposing any other property(s) and assets beronging to them tiil the aforesaid adjudicated debt amount are recovered from the Defendants No.1 & 2.

¶49

(iv) Defendants No.1 & 2 are given a time of sixty days from the date of this Finar order / Judgment for repayment of the above mentioned dues, so intimated to them. ln case the Defendants fail to pay the dues within the above mentioned time, the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover its dues by sale of secured property(s), as aforesaid. Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against personal property(s) of the Defendants both moveable and immoveable and also proceed against the Defendants No.1 & 2 personally to recover the dues, in accordance with law.

¶50

(v) Let the certificate of Recovery be drawn up by Ld. Registrar forthwith in terms of Final order / Judgment for issuance of the same against the Defendants No.1 & 2 in favour of applicant Bank under section 19(22) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (amended from time to time) and put up the same for signature for issuance.

¶51

¶52

(vi) Ld. Recovery officer shall realize the amount as per the Recovery certificate from Defendants No.1 & 2, in accordance with law.

¶53

{

¶54

¶55

O.A.1141 ol2025 - ORf -2Kot

¶56

¶57

(vii) Ld. Registrar of this Tribunar is directed to prace Recovery certificate in terms of this Final Order / Judgment under section 19(22) of the Act of 1 993.

¶58

Accordingry, the originar Apprication, being o.A. No.141 0f 2025 isa[owed and stands disposed of.

¶59

File be consigned to Record room.

¶60

This order is dictated and corrected by the undersigned and pronounced on this the 06th day ot May,2O26.

¶61

copy of the Finar order / Judgment be uproaded on the Tribuna|s Website.

¶62

kkb

¶63

lvv' A^,+r-" .c. (Arbind Ma hav) Presiding Officer DRT-2, Kotkata

¶64

I J a

Yes Bank Limited v. Munee Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yes Bank Limited v. Munee Devi

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

Uco Bank versus Chiranjib Roy

Uco Bank versus Sri Buddhadeb Laha

Canara Bank versus Sri Abhijit Ghosh

Punjab National Bank versus Sri Dipanjan Kumar Nayak

Canara Bank versus Saifuddin Mondal

Canara Bank versus Baidya Nath Banerjee