Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals

BANK OF BARODA vs Mrs E Kanchana on 31 December 2019

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –I AT CHENNAI

Dated this 31st Day of December, 2019

Present: Dr.N.V. BADARINATH

PRESIDING OFFICER

TA 336/2018

(O.A. No.614/2014 on the file of DRT-III, Chennai)

Bank of Baroda,

Vellore Branch,

No.20/20, Long Bazaar,

Vellore – 1.

….

Applicant

Vs.

1. Mrs.E.Kanchana, W/o Late Ealumalai,

2. Mr.E.Navin Kumar, S/o Late Ealumalai,

3. Ms.E. Divya, D/o Late Ealumalai,

4. Minor E.Sarath Kumar, S/o Late Ealumalai, (Represented by Mother & Natural Guardian The 1st defendant herein)

Defendants 1 to 4 are residing at

No.17/38, Thangavel Mudaliar Street,

Sainathapuram,

Vellore District.

Defendants.

Counsel for the Applicant Bank : M/s.T.Rajasekar, M.Sathish Kumar Defendants remained ex-parte.

ORDER

1. This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 against the defendants jointly and severally for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,62,746.38p due under Over Draft Loan facility together with interest @ 12% p.a., with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization in full, for sale of the schedule mentioned property along with costs of this application.

Page 1 of 3

2. Defendants remained ex-parte.

3. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant, perused the OA averments and the record placed before the Tribunal. The point that arises for consideration is

Whether the applicant bank is entitled for the amount claimed in the application from the defendants? If so, at what rate of interest?

4. Point

Whether the applicant bank is entitled for the amount claimed in the application from the defendants? If so, at what rate of interest?

4.1 To prove its claim, the applicant bank filed proof affidavit through its Chief Manager along with 19 documents, which are marked as Ex.A1 to A19. The proof affidavit of the applicant bank remain unchallenged and unrebutted. Therefore, on careful consideration of proof affidavit along with Exhibits filed on behalf of the applicant bank, besides the material placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant bank has successfully proved the TA claim against the defendants. Point is answered accordingly.

5. For the reasons stated as above, it is held that the applicant bank is entitled for a Recovery Certificate against the defendants jointly and severally for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,62,746.38p due under Over Draft Loan facility together with pendent lite and future interest at 9% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the application till the date of realization in full, for sale of the schedule mentioned property along with costs of this application.

……… 3/-

Page 2 of 3

6. In the result, application is allowed as under:

(a) The applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.10,62,746.38p due under Over Draft Loan facility with pendent lite and future interest at 9% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the application till the date of realization in full, from the defendants jointly and severally.

(b) It is further ordered that in case of default of payment by the defendants, the applicant bank is entitled to sell the schedule mentioned property and adjust the sale proceeds towards the amount due.

(c) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants are personally liable for all such amounts due.

(d) It is further ordered that any amount remitted or realized, if any, during the course of the proceedings, shall be given due credit to the loan account of the defendants.

(e) The applicant bank is entitled for costs of this application.

7. The applicant bank is directed to file costs memo within two weeks of the receipt of this order.

8. Issue recovery certificate in favour of the applicant bank in terms of this final order.

9. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Rule 16 read with Rule 2(c) of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993. (Dictated to steno, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 31st day of December, 2019)

Sd/- (Dr.N.V. BADARINATH) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, CHENNAI

Page 3 of 3

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead