BANK OF BARODA vs HASEENA K on 10 May 2018

**FINAL ORDER**

This Original Application is filed under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act') for recovery of a sum of Rs.46,50,890.92/- [Rupees Forty Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety and Ninety Two Paisa only] being the amount lying as debit balance in the payment pending investigation account of the applicant together with future interest @16.25% per annum with monthly rests from the defendant and her assets; the sum of Rs.1,08,155/- [Rupees One Lakh Eight Hundred and One Hundred Fifty Five only] due under PL account No.260038 together with future interest @17.75% per annum with monthly rests from the defendant and her assets; the 

TA 345/2016 (OA 119/2010)2

sum of Rs.1,07,686/-[Rupees One Lakh Seven Hundred and Sixty Eighty Eight only] due under PL account No.260068 together with future interest @17.75% per annum with monthly rests from the defendant and her assets; and the sum of Rs.75,522/-[Rupees Seventy Five Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Two only] due under PL account No.270020 together with future interest @17.75% per annum with monthly rests from the defendant and her assets.

**BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE**

1. The defendant joined the service of Vijaya Bank as Clerk on 23.07.1990 and was later promoted as Assistant Manager. From 05.06.2002 to 01.05.2006 she worked as Assistant Manager and from 02.05.2006 to 02.03.2007, she worked as Branch Manager of the Cherthala Branch of the applicant bank. On 28.02.2007, the then Assistant Branch Manager of the Cherthala Branch of the applicant observed suspicious actions on the part of the defendant amounting to misappropriation and fraudulent sanctioning of loans and reported the same to the Controlling Office of the applicant. Taking note of the same, the defendant was transferred to Kochi Regional Office of the applicant bank on 02.03.2007. The defendant admitted her liability in the matter vide her letter dated 03.03.2007 and sought time for returning the amounts siphoned by her and she is yet to make good the loss caused to the applicant. As the irregularities observed on the part of the defendant was grave, she was suspended from services on 08.03.2007.

2. It is the case of the applicant that as per procedure, investigation into the matter was conducted and as serious TA 345/2016 (OA 119/2010)3

misconducts of misappropriation and fraudulent sanction of loans were observed on the part of the defendant, the disciplinary authority of the applicant bank issued charge sheet dated 14.03.2008 to the defendant. Enquiry under Regulation 6 of Vijaya Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation 1981 was filed and all the charges were proved against the defendant. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority vide proceedings dated 28.02.2009 imposed the punishment of 'dismissal from services of the bank with immediate effect' upon the defendant. Apart from the above, the applicant bank had also filed complaints before the local Police, Cherthala registered as Crime No.112/2007 and Crime No.753/2008 and the prosecution is undertrial.

3. It is submitted by the applicant that the defendant had indulged in fraudulent transactions and had derived undue pecuniary benefits and had caused unlawful loss to the applicant bank which the applicant bank is entitled in law to recover from the defendant. The fraudulent actions on the part of the defendant which have mainly caused loss to the applicant bank is in the matter of misappropriation done by the defendant in customers' deposit accounts and also in the matter of pro-note loans sanctioned in the name of imposters. With respect to the fraudulent transactions done by the defendant in customers' deposit account, it is submitted that she had misused the passwords of other staff members, and prematurely withdrawn various customers' deposit accounts without their knowledge and had siphoned the amounts. In this regard, claim has been received by the applicant from the account holders in 16 accounts on various dates and the applicant was forced to honor the claim totaling to TA 345/2016 (OA 119/2010)4

Rs.31,92,791.92 by debiting the applicant's payment pending investigation account and the defendant is liable for the said amount with interest at commercial rate (@16.25%) to the applicant.

4. It is urged by the applicant that with regard to the pro-note loans is fraudulently sanctioned by the defendant in the name of imposters, it is submitted that the defendant on 31.07.2006 sanctioned a loan of Rs.75,000/- in the name of Sri.Baiju.V under account No.PL 260038 and the said loan was to be repaid in 48 monthly installments with a minimum interest @12.25% per annum and one Sri.K.S.Gopinath was mentioned as the guarantor. On 29.09.2006, the defendant sanctioned a loan of Rs.75,000/- in the name of Jayan.R under account No.PL 260068 and the said loan was to be repaid in 48 monthly installments with a minimum interest @12.50% per annum and one Raviram was mentioned as the guarantor. Again on 05.02.2007, the defendant sanctioned a loan of Rs.60,000/- in the name of one Saji Mon.P.P and the said loan was to be repaid in 48 monthly installments with a minimum interest @12.75% per annum and one Shaji.J.John was mentioned as the guarantor. It has come out that the said borrowers are imposters of the defendant and the defendant has utilized the proceeds of the loan and hence the defendant is liable for the said amounts with applicable interest and that all the loan accounts are in default.

5. It is submitted by the applicant that the defendant by misusing her official position siphoned the money during the course of business activity and derived unlawful gain and thereby the applicant had suffered unlawful loss and hence the defendant is liable TA 345/2016 (OA 119/2010)5

to return the said amounts with interest to the applicant. As on 22.02.2010, an amount of Rs.46,50,890.92 is due to the applicant in the matter of term deposits misappropriation and an amount of Rs.2,91,878/- is due to the applicant in the pro-note loans and the defendant and her assets are liable for the same. Although the applicant had applied penal interest, capitalized portion of the same is deducted from the claim. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.1,08,155/-, Rs.1,07,686/- and Rs.75,522/- is outstanding in PL account Nos.260038, 260068 and 270020 respectively.

6. The defendant filed written statement contending at the outset that the above OA filed to recover the alleged misappropriated amounts is not maintainable before the Tribunal since amounts appropriated does not come within the definition of 'debt' as defined in the RDBFI Act and hence the Tribunal cannot exercise jurisdiction to recover such amount. Therefore, the defendant sought to decide the question of maintainability before moving into the merits of the case. To buttress her case, the defendant is relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case titled *Bank of India vs. Vijay Ramniklal Kapadia & others* [AIR 1997 Guj. 75].

7. The averment regarding suspicious actions amounting to misappropriation and fraudulent sanctioning of loans are false and hence denied. The admission of liability vide letter dated 03.03.2007 is also denied. The averment regarding suspension, investigation and issuance of charge sheet is admitted, but there was no misappropriation or fraudulent sanctioning of loans as alleged. The enquiry was one-sided and hence this defendant was dismissed from TA 345/2016 (OA 119/2010)6

service and that the averment regarding pending of criminal case is true.

8. It is submitted by the defendant that she has not fraudulently sanctioned any pro-note loan and she is not liable for any amount as alleged by the applicant. She has not misused her official position to siphon any money during the course of business activity and neither the defendant nor her assets are liable for the alleged misappropriation. This defendant has not admitted the alleged liability. The bank had during the beginning of investigation forced this defendant to sign certain blank papers, one of which is believed to have been misused to admit the alleged liability so as to deliberately find fault with this defendant and thereby dismiss this defendant from service. The interest charged is in gross violation of the rules and regulations issued by RBI and hence the defendant is not liable to pay the same also. The defendant prayed to dismiss the OA with costs as not maintainable.

9. The defendant filed additional written statement contending that the application under the provisions of RDBFI Act is not applicable to claim such as misappropriation of money, forgery etc. and that same is not maintainable in law. It is the case of the defendant that the applicant had lodged two criminal complaints against the defendant which resulted in lodging FIR in Cr. 112/2008 and Cr. 753/2008 of the Cherthala Police Station. In the FIR in Cr. 112/2008 it was alleged that the defendant had misappropriated an amount of Rs.31,92,791.92 and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted before JFCM-1, Cherthala in the above crime, wherein an TA 345/2016 (OA 119/2010)7

amount of Rs.17,06,115/- alone was made. CC 1555/2008 was registered by JFCM-1, Cherthala wherein the Senior Manager of the bank who had conducted internal investigation was examined and going by his evidence, no substantial averments are made against this defendant and thus CC 1555/2008 is resulted in acquittal of the defendant and thereby it will be found that the allegations raised in para 5 of the OA are baseless and wrong.

10. It is urged by the defendant that crime No.753/2008 was also found incorrect and the accused was acquitted. The JFCM-1, Cherthala as per judgment dated 15.02.2014 in CC No.1630/2008 found that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of forgery by the accused and the defendant was acquitted in the case. The bank has not filed any appeal against the judgment and as such, it has become final. Therefore, the defendant prayed to dismiss the OA with costs.

11. The evidence on the side of the applicant bank consists of the proof affidavit of its Senior Branch Manager (AW1) and Exts.A1 to A48. The evidence on the side of the defendant consists of the counter proof affidavit and additional counter proof affidavit and no documents are marked on her side.

12. Heard arguments and perused the records of the case. The following points arise for my consideration:

(i) **Whether the applicant is entitled to get the reliefs prayed for in the OA?**

(ii) **What order?**

TA 345/2016 (OA 119/2010)8

Findings:

**Point No.1: In affirmative**

**Point No.2: As per order**

Reasons:

13. The primary point that arises for consideration of the Tribunal is as to whether the OA is not maintainable before the Tribunal as contended by the defendant.

14. According to the applicant bank, the defendant, who was an employee of the bank, had indulged in fraudulent transactions and had derived undue pecuniary benefits and had caused unlawful loss to the applicant bank which the applicant bank is entitled to recover from the defendant. It is strenuously submitted by the applicant that fraudulent actions on the part of the defendant has caused loss to the applicant is in the matter of misappropriation done by her in customers' deposit accounts by prematurely withdrawing various customers' deposit accounts without their knowledge and had siphoned off the amounts and that she has sanctioned pro-note loans in the name of imposters as well. It is the case of the applicant that claim has been received by them from 16 account holders in the matter of premature withdrawal of their deposit accounts and the applicant was forced to honour the claim aggregating to Rs.31,92,791.92 by debiting the said amount in applicant's payment pending investigation account and the defendant is liable for the said amount with interest at commercial rate (@16.25%) to the applicant.

15. It is emphatically contended by the applicant that the defendant by misusing her official position siphoned off the money TA 345/2016 (OA 119/2010)9

during the course of business activity and derived unlawful gain and thereby the applicant had suffered unlawful loss and hence the defendant is liable to return the said amounts with interest to the applicant. It is submitted by the applicant that as on 22.02.2010, an amount of Rs.46,50,890.92/- is due to the applicant in the matter of term deposits misappropriation and an amount of Rs.2,91,878/- is due to the applicant in the pro-note loans and the defendant and her assets are liable for the same. The applicant is relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled *United Bank of India vs. Debts Recovery Tribunal & others [AIR 1999 SC 1381]* and another judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the case titled *Amit.H.Jhaveri of Mumbai vs. Bank of Baroda* to substantiate their case.

16. For proper appreciation of the point under consideration, it would be fruitful to reproduce the relevant provisions of the RDBFI Act, 1993 and accordingly they are extracted herein below:

**S.19. Application to the Tribunal.**—(1) Where a bank or a financial institution has to recover any debt from any person, it may make an application to the Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction—

- (a) the branch or any other office of the bank or financial institution is maintaining an account in which debt claimed is outstanding, for the time being; or

- (aa) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of making the application, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain; or

- (b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of making the application, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain; or

- (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

TA 345/2016 (OA 119/2010)10

**S.2(g) "debt"** means any liability (inclusive of interest) which is claimed as due from any person by a bank or a financial institution or by a consortium of banks or financial institutions during the course of any business activity undertaken by the bank or the financial institution or the consortium under any law for the time being in force, in cash or otherwise, whether secured or unsecured, or assigned, or whether payable under a decree or order of any civil court or any arbitration award or otherwise or under a mortgage and subsisting on, and legally recoverable on, the date of the application;

17. The RDDBFI Act empowers the banks and financial institutions to recover any debt from any person by making an application under S.19 of the Act before the Tribunal having jurisdiction over the matter. On the plain reading of the definition of debt, it is clear that any liability which is claimed as due from any person by a bank during the course of any business activity undertaken by it in cash or otherwise, whether secured or unsecured, or whether payable under a decree or an order of any Civil Court or otherwise, and subsisting on and legally recoverable on, the date of the application is a 'debt'.

18. In the instant matter, the applicant is seeking reliefs against the defendant under four heads. Firstly, according to the applicant bank, the defendant is liable to pay to the bank an amount of Rs.46,50,890.92 being the amount with interest lying as debit balance in Exts.A47 and A48 statements of account pertaining to the payment pending investigation account and the said liability has arisen on account of the payments aggregating to Rs.31,92,791.92 made by the bank to its 16 account holders for the reason of the fraudulent transaction done by the defendant in customers' deposit account by prematurely withdrawing the deposit amounts without the knowledge and consent of the depositors and had siphoned off the TA 345/2016 (OA 119/2010)11

amounts. The documentary evidence adduced by the applicant bank would disclose the fact that while claim has been received by the bank from the account holders in 16 accounts, the applicant has honoured the claim aggregating to Rs.31,92,791.92 by debiting the said amount in payment pending investigation account and, in such circumstance, the defendant is liable to pay the said amount with interest and the same can be construed as a 'debt' under the definition of S.2(g) of the RDBFI Act.

19. Insofar as the claim made by the applicant bank under Exts.A38, A41 and A44 statements of accounts pertaining to three pro-note loans (viz., PL account Nos.260038, 260068 and 270020, aggregating to Rs.2,91,363/-) is concerned, the materials on record would divulge the fact that the defendant sanctioned a loan of Rs.75,000/- on 31.07.2006 in the name of Sri.Baiju.V under account No.PL 260038 and the said loan was to be repaid in 48 monthly installments with a minimum interest @12.25% per annum and one Sri.K.S.Gopinath was mentioned as the guarantor. On 29.09.2006, the defendant sanctioned a loan of Rs.75,000/- in the name of Jayan.R under account No.PL 260068 and the said loan was to be repaid in 48 monthly installments with a minimum interest @12.50% per annum and one Raviram was mentioned as the guarantor. Again on 05.02.2007, the defendant sanctioned a loan of Rs.60,000/- in the name of one Saji Mon.P.P and the said loan was to be repaid in 48 monthly installments with a minimum interest @12.75% per annum and one Shaji.J.John was mentioned as the guarantor. According to the applicant bank, the said borrowers are imposters of the defendant and the defendant has utilized the proceeds of the loans and hence TA 345/2016 (OA 119/2010)12

the defendant is liable for the said amounts with applicable interest.

Evidently, all the loan accounts are in default.

20. It is pertinent to mention here that even though the defendant is not admitting any liability as claimed in the OA, Ext.A1 letter dated 03.03.2007 executed by the defendant in favour of the applicant bank would reveal that she undertook to pay the entire amount due to the bank under the FD accounts as well as PL accounts and sought time to repay the same. Ext.A1 letter executed by the defendant is reproduced hereunder:

"From HASEENA.K BRANCH MANAGER VIJAYA BANK CHERTHALA

To REGIONAL MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE KOCHI

Sir,

Ref: the letter dated 02/03/2007

Sub: Transaction made by me by prematurely closed the deposits without the consent of the depositors With reference to the above I already issued a letter on 02/03/2007 about repay the amount to the bank. Because of huge financial crisis face by me during the past three years I forced to do such things in the bank. I was trapped by some private financers and faced a threaten to my life & family. In this situation I have done all these things.

Now I request you to give sufficient time to remit the amount. I have arranged money by some chitties amounting 12 lacs which will get between March 31^st and the first week of April. Also making arrangement to sell the property at Changanasserry valued 14 lacs.

I assure you to repay the amount within 30^th April 2007. If you not giving such time I will not get the money from the sources mentioned above. Otherwise I will assign all of my Life insurance policies to the bank and commit suicide. I had already informed all matters in detailed to Smt.KC.Chinna, Asst Manager at her house on 11/02/2007 & 25/02/2007.

TA 345/2016 (OA 119/2010)13

All transactions made by me are under my own responsibilities. I have done all the transactions from 2005 onwards; I am not in the sense to cheat the bank and customers. There are no customer complaints against me. I arranged all the money when they demand. Because of my vigors situation for existence I have done all these things.

Details of transactions made by me are mentioned separately.

List of prematurely closed accounts

1. 1. VCC250091 - Gomathy amma 06/09/2006

2. 2. 270004 - Teena Tomy 07/04/07

3. 3. 270005 - Meena Tomy 07/04/07

4. 4. 240044 - Gopinathan Nair 03/04/07

5. 5. 250045 - Ambujakshamma 21/02/07

6. 6. 250046 - Gomathy amma 25/02/07

7. 7. 260080 - Jyothish Pankajakshan 31/03/07

8. 8. 260205 - Gomathy amma 06/09/09

9. 9. NREVCC - 240001 - Xavier Joseph 03/03/07

10. 10. 260045 - Suresh R. shenoi-06/04/07

11. 11. 230015 - K.J.Thomas Sajeev-17/03/05

12. 12. 230013 - K.J.Thomas Sajeev-17/03/05

13. 13. 230016 - K.J.Thomas Sajeev-17/03/05

14. 14. 230014 - K.J.Thomas Sajeev-17/03/05

15. 15. FD-260036-Aneesh Reghu 01/10/06

16. 16. 260037-Anith Reghu 01/10/06

17. 17. 260038-Aneesh Reghu 01/10/06

18. 18. 260039-Anitha Reghu 01/10/06

19. 19. 260060-V.V.Dominic 09/03/07

PL accounts created by me by fake documents

1. 1. Jayan - 75000/- A/c 260068

2. 2. Baiju - 75000/- A/c 260038

3. 3. Sajimon P P - 60000/- A/c 270020

These three accounts created by me without the permission of the borrowers, all responsibilities held on me only.

Transaction on the SB accounts

- SB-8118 - Sajimon PP - 270020

- 9123 - Ajitha Kumari

- 7831 - Sreedevi

- 9643 - Santhamma

- 8991 - K.K.Prasadan

- 8899 - K.K.Prasadan

- 100029 - Haseena.K

All transactions made in the above SB accounts are made by me only. I am ready to suffer all consequences and please avoid all the customers, borrowers, staff members from this regard.

Kindly refer and confirm the attached list and take action against me. Please forgive all my crime and give time to repay the entire amount to the bank. I beg your mercy.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

TA 345/2016 (OA 119/2010)14

Cherthala

Sd/- Haseena.K 3/3/07"

21. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence adduced by the applicant bank, this Tribunal is of the view that the amount claimed by the applicant bank under Exts.A38, A41, A44, A47 and A48 clearly falls within the ambit of the word 'debt' defined under S.2(g) of the Act as the opening words 'any liability' are wide enough to include the claim in the present case as well. The later part of the definition of the word 'debt' clearly states that it is the liability due from any person during the course of business activity undertaken by the bank and which can be said to be a 'debt'. It could be inferred from the records that pursuant to the request made by the depositors to repay the amount deposited by them as per the term deposit receipts together with interest thereon, the applicant bank has evidently honored the payments to them despite the amount covered under the said term deposit receipts were misappropriated by the defendant by premature withdrawal of the amounts covered thereunder without the knowledge of the depositors.

22. In such circumstance, the Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the liability to the tune of Rs.46,50,890.92 claimed as due from the defendant under Exts.A47 and A48 statements of account has arisen during the course of business activity undertaken by the applicant bank. As the claim made in the OA is well founded, it is legally recoverable from the defendant under law. In the above backdrop, the Tribunal holds that the claim made by the applicant TA 345/2016 (OA 119/2010)15

bank in the OA is a 'debt' within the meaning of S.2(g) of the Act and as such, the OA is maintainable before the Tribunal.

23. The case of the applicant bank regarding recovery of the sum of the sum of Rs.46,50,890.92 claimed as due under Exts.A47 and A48 statements of account relating to the amount lying as debit balance in the payment pending investigation account of the applicant as on 22.02.2010 together with pendent lite and post decree interest thereon from the defendant and her assets; the sum of Rs.1,08,155/- claimed as due under Ext.A38 statement of account relating to PL account No.260038 as on 22.02.2010 together with pendent lite and post decree interest on the sum of Rs.1,07,168/- (after deducting the penal interest portion - Rs.987/-) from the defendant and her assets; the sum of Rs.1,07,686/- claimed as due under Ext.A41 statement of account relating to PL account No.260068 as on 22.02.2010 together with pendent lite and post decree interest on the sum of Rs.1,06,511/- (after deducting the penal interest portion - Rs.1,175/-) from the defendant and her assets; and the sum of Rs.75,522/- claimed as due under Ext.A44 statement of account relating to PL account No.270020 as on 22.02.2010 together with pendent lite and post decree interest on the sum of Rs.74,411/- (after deducting the penal interest portion - Rs.1,111/-) from the defendant and her assets, is proved by the proof affidavit of its Senior Branch Manager, AW1 and Exts.A1 to A48.

24. Having regard to the nature of transactions involved in this case, I am of the view that the applicant bank is entitled to get pendent-lite and post-decree interest @16.25% per annum with TA 345/2016 (OA 119/2010)16

monthly rests on the amount claimed under payment pending investigation account and @15.75% per annum with monthly rests on the amount claimed under PL account Nos.260038, 260068 and 270020.

ORDER

25. The OA is allowed with costs. The applicant bank is allowed to recover:

1. (i) the sum of Rs.46,50,890.92 (Rupees forty six lakhs fifty thousand eight hundred ninety and Paise ninety two only) being the amount lying as debit balance in the payment pending investigation account of the applicant with further interest thereon @16.25% per annum with monthly rests from 23.02.2010 till realization from the defendant and her assets;

2. (ii) the sum of Rs.1,08,155/- (Rupees one lakh eight thousand one hundred and fifty five only) due under PL account No.260038 with further interest on the sum of Rs.1,07,168/- (Rupees one lakh seven thousand one hundred and sixty eight only) @15.75% per annum with monthly rests from 23.02.2010 till realization from the defendant and her assets;

3. (iii) the sum of Rs.1,07,686/- (Rupees one lakh seven thousand six hundred and eighty six only) due under PL account No.260068 with further interest on the sum of Rs.1,06,511/- (Rupees one lakh six thousand five TA 345/2016 (OA 119/2010)17

hundred and eleven only) @15.75% per annum with monthly rests from 23.02.2010 till realization from the defendant and her assets;

(iv) the sum of Rs.75,522/- (Rupees seventy five thousand five hundred and twenty two only) due under PL account No.270020 with further interest on the sum of Rs.74,411/- (Rupees seventy four thousand four hundred and eleven only) @15.75% per annum with monthly rests from 23.02.2010 till realization from the defendant and her assets; and

(v) also its costs from the defendant and her assets.

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

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

28. The Registry is directed to communicate copy of the order to the parties concerned by speed post or registered post with AD.

[Dictated to the PS, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 10^th day of May, 2018]

... esiding Officer

TA 345/2016 (OA 119/2010)18**APPENDIX**Witness for Applicant:

AW1: Avneesh Anand, Senior Branch Manager of the applicant bank.

Witness for Defendant(s):

DW1: Hazeena.K (defendant)

**Exhibits on the part of the applicant**

<table border="1"> <thead> <tr> <th><u>Ext.No.</u></th> <th><u>Date</u></th> <th><u>Particulars of documents</u></th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>A1</td> <td>03.03.2007</td> <td>Letter issued by the defendant to the applicant.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>A2</td> <td>08.03.2007</td> <td>Office copy of the suspension order issued to the defendant by the applicant bank.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>A3</td> <td>14.03.2008</td> <td>Office copy of the charge sheet issued to the defendant.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>A4</td> <td>28.02.2009</td> <td>Office copy of the proceedings of the disciplinary authority.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>A5</td> <td>11.01.2011</td> <td>Office copy of the order of the appellate authority of the applicant bank.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>A6</td> <td>13.03.2007</td> <td>Application submitted by Xavier Joseph Babu for closure of deposit.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>A7</td> <td>14.03.2007</td> <td>FD receipt issued in the name of Xavier Joseph.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>A8</td> <td>10.03.2007</td> <td>Application submitted to the bank by Dominic.V.V.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>A9</td> <td>15.03.2007</td> <td>FD receipt issued in the name of Dominic.V.V.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>A10</td> <td>27.03.2007</td> <td>E-mail request of Thomas Sajeev.K.John to transfer the amount in the name of C.I.Kunjumon.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>A11</td> <td>22.03.2007</td> <td>Banker's cheque issued in the name of C.I.Kunjumon.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>A12</td> <td>...</td> <td>Application submitted to the bank by Gopinathan Nair.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>A13</td> <td>09.04.2007</td> <td>FD receipt issued in the name of Gopinathan Nair.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>A14</td> <td>09.04.2007</td> <td>Application submitted to the bank by Gomathi Amma.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>A15</td> <td>09.04.2007</td> <td>FD receipt issued in the name of Gomathi Amma.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>A16</td> <td>09.04.2007</td> <td>Application submitted to the bank by Ambujakshi Amma.</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

TA 345/2016 (OA 119/2010)19

<table><tr><td>A17</td><td>09.04.2007</td><td>FD receipt issued in the name of Ambujakshi Amma.</td></tr><tr><td>A18</td><td>10.04.2007</td><td>FD receipt issued in the name of Ambujakshi Amma.</td></tr><tr><td>A19</td><td>10.04.2007</td><td>FD receipt issued in the name of Gomathi Amma.</td></tr><tr><td>A20</td><td>19.04.2007</td><td>Application submitted to the bank by Jyothi Pankajakshan.</td></tr><tr><td>A21</td><td>28.06.2007</td><td>FD receipt issued in the name of Jyothi Pankajakshan.</td></tr><tr><td>A22</td><td>...</td><td>Application submitted to the bank by Teenu Tomy.</td></tr><tr><td>A23</td><td>12.11.2007</td><td>FD receipt issued in the name of Teenu Tomy.</td></tr><tr><td>A24</td><td>...</td><td>Application submitted to the bank by Meena Tomy.</td></tr><tr><td>A25</td><td>10.10.2007</td><td>FD receipt issued in the name of Meena Tomy.</td></tr><tr><td>A26</td><td>18.09.2007</td><td>E-mail application submitted to the bank by Suresh Shenoy.</td></tr><tr><td>A27</td><td>27.11.2007</td><td>FD receipt issued in the name of Suresh Shenoy.</td></tr><tr><td>A28</td><td>14.12.2007</td><td>Application submitted to the bank by Aneesh Reghu and Ragupathi.A.G.</td></tr><tr><td>A29</td><td>12.04.2008</td><td>FD receipt issued in the name of Aneesh Reghu and Ragupathi.A.G.</td></tr><tr><td>A30</td><td>12.04.2008</td><td>FD receipt issued in the name of Aneesh Reghu and Ragupathi.A.G.</td></tr><tr><td>A31</td><td>14.12.2007</td><td>Application submitted to the bank by Anitha Reghu and Raghupathi.A.G.</td></tr><tr><td>A32</td><td>12.04.2008</td><td>FD receipt issued in the name of Anitha Reghu and Ragupathi.A.G.</td></tr><tr><td>A33</td><td>12.04.2008</td><td>FD receipt issued in the name of Anitha Reghu and Ragupathi.A.G.</td></tr><tr><td>A34</td><td>...</td><td>Statement of SB account in respect of Ragupathi.A.G.</td></tr><tr><td>A35</td><td>...</td><td>Loan papers in the name of Baiju.V.</td></tr><tr><td>A36</td><td>...</td><td>Loan papers in the name of Jayan.R.</td></tr><tr><td>A37</td><td>...</td><td>Certified copy of loan papers obtained from JFCM Court-I, Cherthala in the name of Sajimon.P.P.</td></tr><tr><td>A38</td><td>...</td><td>Certified copy of the statement of account relating to loan account No.PL 260038.</td></tr><tr><td>A39</td><td>04.11.2015</td><td>Statement showing the period and rate of interest applied in Ext.A38 account.</td></tr></table>

TA 345/2016 (OA 119/2010)

- A40 04.11.2015 Statement showing the penal interest applied in Ext.A38 account and capitalization value thereof.

- A41 ... Certified copy of the statement of account relating to loan account No.PL 260068.

- A42 04.11.2015 Statement showing the period and rate of interest applied in Ext.A41 account.

- A43 04.11.2015 Statement showing the penal interest applied in Ext.A41 account and capitalization value thereof.

- A44 ... Certified copy of the statement of account relating to loan account No.PL 270020.

- A45 04.11.2015 Statement showing the period and rate of interest applied in Ext.A44 account.

- A46 04.11.2015 Statement showing the penal interest applied in Ext.A44 account and capitalization value thereof.

- A47 ... Certified copy of the statement of account relating to payment pending investigation account.

- A48 ... Statement showing the interest accrued in Ext.A47 account.

(F

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Dated this the 10^th day of May, 2018

Present: S.V.Gowramma, B.A., LL.B Presiding Officer

TA No.345/2016 (OA No.119/2010)

Between

Vijaya Bank

...Applicant

And

Haseena.K

...Defendant

FINAL ORDER