BANK OF BARODA vs M/s GREEN TRANSIT RENEWABLE ENERGIES on 30 March 2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

Dated this the 30th day of March, 2026

TA No.338/2016 (OA No.315/2015) Between

Bank of Baroda,

Peroorkada Branch,

Padmasree, Toll Junction,

Kowdiar P.O.,

Thiruvananthapuram – 695 003.

…Applicant

And

M/s.Green Transit Renewable Energies,

Represented by its proprietor

Murali Krishnan G.,

6D, Diamond Castle,

Above Spencers, Vellayambalam,

Thiruvananthapuram – 695 010.

…Defendant

This Original Application having been heard on 26.03.2026 in the presence of Advocate Sri.Santhosh Kumar K. for the applicant bank and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following: F I N A L O R D E R

This Original Application has been filed under S.19(1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,16,90,677.30 due under term loan account together with future interest thereon @13.25% per annum with monthly rests from the defendant and by sale of ‘A’ schedule property. Facts of the case:

2. The applicant is a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its head office at Baroda and one of its branches at Peroorkada, Thiruvananthapuram.

3. At the request of the defendant, applicant bank sanctioned a term loan of Rs.1 crore as per sanction letter dated 30.08.2012 which was availed by him after executing security documents on 03.09.2012. Towards security for the loan, the defendant created hypothecation charge over the plant and machinery, stock of raw materials etc. described in ‘A’ schedule. After availing the loan, the defendant failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the sanction and committed default in repayment. Consequently, the account turned NPA on 31.03.2015. Despite lawyer notice was issued to the defendant recalling the liability, he did not respond to the same. Hence the applicant was constrained to file the OA claiming the following reliefs:

(i) To recover a sum of Rs.1,16,90,677.30 together with pendente lite and post-decree interest thereon from the defendant and by sale of ‘A’ schedule property;

(ii) To recover the costs, charges and expenses from the defendant;

(iii) To issue Recovery Certificate to the Recovery Officer with a direction to recover the amount and pay it to the applicant bank.

4. The defendant filed written statement denying the execution of loan documents but he claimed that officials of the bank obtained his signature on several unfilled printed forms over which seal of the firm was affixed. It is also claimed that entire monthly installments due to the bank was promptly paid by him for a period of 15 months from the disbursement of the loan without any delay. This defendant is not liable to pay future interest @13.25% per annum and penal interest charged is exorbitant. Hence the OA may be dismissed. Proof Affidavit:

5. To establish the claim on behalf of the applicant bank, one Mrs.Diana Rajamohanan, Branch Manager has filed proof affidavit and produced the loan documents marked as Exhibits A1 to A14. The availing of the loan as well as creation of hypothecation charge over ‘A’ schedule property is well established from the documents placed by the applicant bank.

6. The defendant filed counter proof affidavit stating that he made substantial repayments to the applicant bank and the account lost its character as NPA and original counterfoils issued by the bank are produced in this case. It is incorrect to say that Rs.1,16,90,677.30 is due from the defendant. The applicant is not entitled to get any reliefs as sought for in the OA and hence the same may be dismissed with costs.

7. The defendant remained absent from the proceeding from 11.08.2025 and none appeared to address argument in this case. Heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant bank.

8. The sole issue arises for consideration is whether the applicant bank is entitled to recover the amount as claimed in the TA from the defendant?

9. On perusal of records, it could be discerned that pursuant to the application submitted by the defendant on 10.08.2012, applicant bank sanctioned a term loan of Rs.100 lakhs to the proprietary concern of the defendant vide Ext.A1 sanction letter dated 30.08.2012. While availing the loan, the defendant executed Ext.A2 demand promissory note dated

03.09.2012 for Rs.100 lakhs, Ext.A3 letter of sole proprietorship, Ext.A4 letter of installment with acceleration clause, Ext.A5 composite hypothecation agreement, Ext.A6 undertaking agreeing to charge penal interest or further interest at the rate as may be fixed by the bank, Ext.A7 general undertaking allowing the bank to charge penal interest @2% per annum above the rate applicable to the loan and Exts.A8 and A9 letters of authority in favour of the bank. The defendant failed to disprove the execution of the aforesaid documents. Further, it could be seen that the lawyer notice marked as Ext.A10 issued by the applicant bank demanding repayment of the outstanding dues of Rs.1,15,96,776/- was received by the defendant on 09.06.2015 which is evident from the acknowledgement card marked as Ext.A12. But he has not raised any dispute as regards the amount outstanding in the loan account. The account statement marked as Ext.A13 as well as the counterfoils produced by the defendant would show that the defendant had remitted some amount in the loan account but the same is not suffice to wipe off the entire liability. It is also the admitted case of the defendant that he had remitted only 15 installments from the date of disbursement of loan till 30.10.2013. According to the applicant bank, the account was classified as NPA on 31.03.2015. In the above circumstance, applicant bank is entitled to recover the balance amount due under the loan account, which is claimed in this case, from the defendant.

10. It is averred in paragraph No.10 of proof affidavit filed by the applicant bank that a sum of Rs.28,033.87 is charged by way of penal interest in the term loan account. It is well settled that penal interest cannot be capitalized and no interest can be charged on penal interest and hence the applicant bank is not entitled to get any pendente lite and post-decree interest on the aforesaid amount charged in the loan account.

11. Considering the amount advanced, interest and penal interest applied, repayments effected and default committed, I am of the view that the applicant bank is entitled to get pendente lite and post decree interest @12% per annum on the sum of Rs.1,16,62,643.43 (i.e., after excluding the penal interest of Rs.28,033.87 from the OA claim amount of Rs.1,16,90,677.30), which is reasonable in the facts and circumstances.

12. The applicant bank, therefore, is entitled to get a final order on the following lines: In the result, the applicant bank is given a final order allowing it to recover:

(i) the sum of Rs.1,16,90,677.30 (Rupees one crore sixteen lakhs ninety thousand six hundred and seventy seven and Paise thirty only) due under the term loan account from the defendant and by sale of ‘A’ schedule property, if available;

(ii) pendente lite and post-decree interest @12% per annum on the sum Rs.1,16,62,643.43 (Rupees one crore sixteen lakhs sixty two thousand six hundred and forty three and Paise forty three only) from 03.07.2015 till realization from the defendant and by sale of ‘A’ schedule property, if available; and

(iii) costs and expenses borne by it for realization of the loan from the defendant.

13. ‘A’ schedule to the OA shall be appended to this final order.

14. The applicant bank shall file memo of costs within ten days from the date of this final order.

15. Recovery Certificate shall be drawn up and issued to the Recovery Officer in terms of the final order.

16. Communicate copy of this order to both parties as provided in R.16 r/w R.2(c) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993. (Dictated to my PA, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 30th day of March, 2026)

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

A P P E N D I X Witness for Applicant: AW1: Smt.Diana Rajamohanan, Branch Manager of the applicant bank.

Witness for Defendant(s): Nil

Applicant’s Exhibits

Ext.No Date Particulars of documents

A1 30.08.2012 Sanction letter issued by the applicant bank sanctioning term loan of Rs.100 lakhs to the defendant. A2 03.09.2012 Demand promissory note for Rs.100 lakhs executed by the defendant. A3 03.09.2012 Letter of sole proprietorship executed by the defendant. A4 03.09.2012 Letter of installment with acceleration clause executed by the defendant. A5 03.09.2012 Composite hypothecation agreement executed by the defendant. A6 03.09.2012 Undertaking executed by the defendant. A7 03.09.2012 General undertaking executed by the defendant. A8 03.09.2012 Letter of authority executed by the defendant. A9 03.09.2012 Letter of authority to make payment executed by the defendant. A10 05.06.2015 Copy of lawyer notice issued to the defendant. A11 06.06.2015 Postal receipt evidencing despatch of lawyer notice to the defendant. A12 09.06.2015 Acknowledgement card signed by the defendant. A13 … Certified copy of the statement of account relating to the term loan. A14 … Statement showing the rate of interest applied in Ext.A13 account from time to time.

Defendant’s Exhibits – Nil PRESIDING OFFICER

PRESIDING OFFICER

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

Dated the 30th March, 2026

TA No.338/2016 (OA NO.315/2015)

Between

Bank of Baroda, Peroorkada Branch, Padmasree, Toll Junction, Kowdiar P.O., Thiruvananthapuram. …Applicant

And

M/s.Green Transit Renewable Energies, Represented by its proprietor Murali Krishnan G., 6D, Diamond Castle, Above Spencers, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram. …Defendant

F I N A L O R D E R