ICICI BANK LIMITED vs SIDDAPPA APPANNA BARADAGE on 7 March 2020

**FINAL ORDER**

The present Original Application (OA) is filed by the Applicant Bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, seeking recovery of money of **Rs.15,27,143.41(Rupees fifteen lakhs twenty-seven thousand one hundred forty-three and paise forty-one only)** besides future interest etc., in DRT-I, Bangalore and numbered as OA 2464/2014. Due to change of jurisdiction, the application was transferred to DRT-II and numbered as TA 1468/2017.

2. The case of the applicant bank is that the defendant No 1 and 2 approached the applicant bank for farm equipment loan to carry agricultural operations. The Applicant Bank sanctioned three Farm equipment Loans of Rs.4.12 lakhs, Rs.0.75 lakhs and Rs.0.48 lakhs aggregating to Rs.5.35 lakhs for purchasing Swaraj 744/ HD- 48 Tractor with Trolley and equipments.

3T.A.NO.1468/2017

1. 3. The deceased Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 executed necessary documents such as Loan Application, Acknowledgment of sanction letter, Agreement for Agricultural Advance, Stamped Consideration Receipt., Deed of Guarantee, Authorisation Letter, Consent Letters, Registered Simple Mortgage Deed, Deed of Guarantee etc.

2. 4. The deceased Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 agreed to repay the term loans in 18 half yearly EMI's of varying amounts beside interest at the rate of 12.41% p.a.

3. 5. The deceased Defendant Sri. Siddappa Appanna Baradage, and Defendant No.2 agreed to pay variable rate of interest as applicable from time to time as per the directions of the Head Office/Central Office of the Applicant Bank and penal interest in case of default and keep the account regular by paying instalments as and when due to the satisfaction of the Applicant Bank as detailed in the OA by the Applicant Bank.

4. 6. The Applicant Bank further submits that the Defendants after utilizing the entire loan facility proceeds for the above said purposes, failed to make the repayments of the same as agreed and they have not serviced the interest thereon as per 4T.A.NO.1468/2017

the terms and conditions agreed. The Defendants became chronic defaulters in the loan accounts and hence the account became NPA.

7. After filing of the OA, Applicant Bank filed an amendment to the OA seeking inclusion of the legal heirs of Sri. Siddappa Appanna Baragade (Defendant No.1) and Defendant No.1(a) to 1(e) were brought on record.

8. In the light of these factors, it is contended by the Applicant Bank that the Defendants are liable to pay a sum of **Rs.15,27,143.41(Rupees fifteen lakhs twenty-seven thousand one hundred forty-three and paise forty-one only).**

9. During the pendency of OA/TA, summons were sent through RPAD and the same could not be served on Defendant No.2. and hence summon was taken out through paper publication in two leading dailies. Summons sent to D1(a) to D1(e) was returned with postal shara "Returned as refused"

5T.A.NO.1468/2017

which is deemed to be served. When the Defendants were called out they remained absent. Hence placed Exparte.

10. To prove the case of the Applicant Bank, it's Legal Manager - Sri. Anand Raj, S/o. U.D. Ramu, has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and the same was considered as evidence of AW-1 and marked as Ex.A1 and list of documents came to be marked as Ex.A2 and 8 documents came to be marked as Ex.A3 to Ex.A10.

11. No evidence on behalf of the Defendants.

12. Arguments of Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff / applicant bank heard and perused the records of the case.

13. Following points arise for my consideration:

- a) Whether Plaintiff/applicant bank proves its case as contended in the plaint/application?

- b) What order?

14. For the following reasons, I answer the above referred points in the following manner:

6T.A.NO.1468/2017**REASONS**

15. The Legal Manager of the Applicant Bank came to be examined as AW-1. His affidavit by way of evidence reiterates the facts pleaded in the plaint and his affidavit is also corroborated by the above referred Ex. A3 to Ex. A.10 which clearly establish the case of the Applicant Bank to allow the present TA.

16. Therefore, for these reasons, present TA is to be allowed with costs as sought by the applicant bank.

**ORDER**

Present TA stands allowed as prayed for with interest and costs.

In the event of failure of Defendants to pay the said TA amount, the Applicant Bank is at liberty to sell the Hypothecated movables offered as security according to law as sought by the Applicant Bank in the T.A.

In spite of sale of the Hypothecated movables described in the Schedule if the OA amount is not fully realized, then the 7T.A.NO.1468/2017

Applicant Bank is at liberty to proceed against the person and other personal properties of Defendant No.2 and out of properties inherited if any from deceased Defendant No.1 by Defendant No.1(a) to 1(e) as required under law and also as advised.

Applicant Bank shall file fresh Memo of calculation of TA amount together with interest, costs etc., to be paid by Defendants duly considering the amount/s if any paid by the Defendants and/or amount realized by sale of assets, etc., during the intervening period after filing the TA, to enable the office to prepare Recovery Certificate for the amount to be paid by the Defendants to the Applicant Bank.

Office is directed to issue the Recovery certificate (Dictated to the Stenographer, after transcription and necessary corrections, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 7^th day of March 2020)

**(K Ravindran Nair)**

Presiding Officer I/c-DRT-II, Bengaluru

8T.A.NO.1468/2017**ANNEXURES****LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT BANK:**

AW.1 – Sri. Anand Raj, S/o. U.D.Ramu Legal Manager of the Applicant Bank

**LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT BANK:**

Ex. A1	:	Affidavit of AW.1
Ex. A2	:	List of documents
Ex. A3 – A10	:	8 documents

**LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:**

- NIL -

**LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEEENDANTS:**

-NIL-

**(K Ravindran Nair)**

Presiding Officer I/c-DRT-II, Bengaluru

\*SR