BANK OF BARODA vs PADMA SHEKAR on 23 September 2024

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2024

Present: SHRI A. S. JAYACHANDRA

Presiding Officer (In – charge)

TRANSFERRED APPLICATION No. 87 of 2024

(Originally filed before DRT-II, Chennai in OA Dy. No.936/2020 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal as OA Dy. No.10923/22 and subsequently numbered as TA No 87 of 2024)

M/s. Bank of Baroda,

(Erstwhile Vijaya Bank)

Represented by its Chief Manger

No. 25, 3rd Avenue, Indiranagar,

Chennai – 600 020.

.…. Applicant

-Vs-

1.

Mrs. Padma Shekar,

W/o. Veera Shekar,

No.5, 3rd Main Road, Indira Nagar,

Adyar, Chennai – 600 020.

2.

Mr. Veera Shekar,

S/o. Muthuraman,

No.5, 3rd Main Road, Indira Nagar,

Adyar, Chennai – 600 020.

3.

Mr. M. Vinayagharaaj

S/o. Muthuraman,

No. 1, Land Marvel Apartments,

Second floor, 1st Street,

Thiruvanmiyur,

Chennai – 600 041.

.....Defendants

Counsels on record / appeared:

Counsel for Applicant

:

M/s. R. Sreedhar

Counsel for Defendants

:

M/s. S. Pradeepa

I.

This application is filed by the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (formerly Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and

Financial Institutions Act, 1993) against the defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2,56,37,906.57p (Rupees Two Crores Fifty Six Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Six and Fifty Seven Paise only) due in respect of Mortgage Loan facility together with further interest @11.90% per annum, with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization in full and for sale of schedule mentioned property together with costs of this application.

II.

Defendants files the WS which is belated and beyond the period prescribed under DRT Rules. However, perused the WS. Though, the D1 to D3 have contended that the bank had taken signatures on many printed blank Forms and also they have contended that they were repaying the loan dues promptly till 2019, it is also contended that the guaranteed emergency credit line scheme was not extended and the scheme was valid till 31.03.2023.

III.

However, there is a tacit and unequivocal admission with regard to the defendants having submitted the proposal for OTS.

IV.

With this admission, it is clear that the transaction of the loan a/c as alleged by the applicant bank is admitted.

V.

In view of the tacit admissions, the case of the bank is being disposed of by the following:-

1.

The applicant bank alleges D1 and D2 have approached the bank in the year 2017 for mortgage loan. The bank sanctioned the loan of Rs.2.30

crores vide Sanction Letter dated 07.09.2017 allowing the repayment under EMI @ Rs.3,28,660 to be paid between 31.10.2017 to 13.09.2027.

2.

The loan documents were executed on 13.09.2017 by the defendants, which include the agreement executed by D1 and D2 and the letter of guarantee by D3, the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 11.09.2017.

3.

The applicant bank further pleaded that the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds by D1 is duly registered vide Doc.No 2375/2017 dated 11.09.2017 registered before the SRO, Adyar. The D1 deposited the original Title Deeds and the deposit of the same is duly registered concerning Schedule A property.

4.

There is an allegation that the defendants failed to adhere to the loan agreements. The personal guarantee deeds are also executed by the D3

on 13.09.2017.

5.

The bank further pleads that the debt is duly acknowledged by the D1 and D2 vide the AoD dated 29.6.2019 and the amount of acknowledged is Rs.2,17,51,154.40p

6.

The statement of accounts at Annexure 9 to the OA and the certificate issued under the banker’s book evidence Act duly signed in original at P.No.106 which comprises the statement of accounts is not disputed in the WS. Likewise, the certificate issued under section 2(A) and 2(A)(C) is also not disputed by the defendants in their WS. This certificate is pertaining to the loan account executed with the erstwhile Vijaya Bank, now migrated to the applicant bank.

7.

In view of the above, the tacit admission of the transaction while pleading at Para 8 of the WS with regard to the liability and the admission of the accounts statement impliedly in so far as not denying or disputing the same, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the claim of the applicant bank cannot be denied.

8.

At the same time, my Ld. predecessor while allowing MA/35/2024 had noted that there shall be no interest for the period of 420 days and noted that the contractual rate of interest cannot be allowed during this period as per para 3 and 4 of the order dated 28.02.2024. The suit is restored on 28.02.2024. Therefore, the applicant bank is not eligible for interest for the period between 02.12.2020 till 28.02.2024.

9.

The Ld. counsel for the defendants Ms. S. Prathiba, submits that D1 is a women entrepreneur but the business is carried out by D2 and D3. She prays for some lenience in the averred future interest.

10. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the bank submits that loan being commercial in nature, no let up be allowed in awarding the future interest.

11. After considering the submissions and after perusal of the documents filed along with the OA and for the reasons mentioned above, the present OA is being disposed of on the basis of admissions by the following:-