BANK OF INDIA vs CHANDRA GOUDA APPANNAGOUDA PATIL on 19 October 2019

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT

BENGALURU

Dated this the 19^th day of October 2019

:Present:

Shri K Ravindran Nair

Hon'ble Presiding Officer

In-charge-DRT-II

TA.No.123/2017

(IN OA.885/2015-DRT-I)

**BETWEEN**

**BANK OF INDIA,**

Branch at Hire-Bagewadi Taluk

& District, Belgaum,

**Represented by its Sr. Manager-**

**Mr. Ashok. V. Padiyar.**

..... **APPLICANT**

**AND:**

1) **Mr. CHANDRAGOUDA APPANNAGOUDA PATIL,**

2) **Mr. PRABHUGOU DA APPANNAGOUDA PATIL,**

3) **Mr. MAHESH CHANDRAGOUDA PATIL,**

4) **Mr. DYAVANAGA UD VIRABHADRAGA UD PATIL.**

**D1 to 4 are residing at:**

Sattigeri Village, Parasagad,

Tal: Saundatti, Dist:Belgaum.

..... **DEFENDANTS**

**Counsels on record/appeared for:**

Applicant : Sri. Sachin. P. Bichu.

D1 to D4 : *Ex parte.*

2TA.No.123/2017

IN OA.885/2015-DRT-I**FINAL ORDER**

The present Application dated 28.09.2015 came to be registered on the basis of jurisdictional transfer and renumbered as TA.No.123/2017 under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993, seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.14,10,627/- (Rupees fourteen lakh, ten thousand, six hundred and twenty-seven only), from the Defendants together with interest and cost.

2. The case of the applicant bank is that defendants 1 to 3 have approached the applicant bank for financial assistance for the purpose of purchase of Tractor, Rotovater and other Agricultural implements. Considering the request of the defendants, the Applicant Bank has sanctioned Agricultural Term Loan of Rs.7,91,000/-, vide Sanction Letter dated 11.12.2008. The defendant No.4 stood as guarantor to the above said loan. The Defendants have executed requisite necessary documents in favour of the applicant bank for the above said loan. The defendants have agreed to repay the said loan as per the terms and conditions of the applicant bank. After 3TA.No.123/2017

availing the loans, the defendants failed to regularize the loan accounts and also failed to pay the installments and did not come forward to repay the balance outstanding. The defendant did not come forward to clear the dues in response to Legal Notice dated 20.07.2015 issued by the Applicant Bank. Hence, the OA was numbered in DRT-1 as OA 885/2015 and transferred to DRT-2 and numbered as TA.123/2017. The applicant bank has produced the documents in favour of its case viz., Loan Application, Sanction Letter, Hypothecation-cum-Loan Agreement, Simple Loan Agreement, Demand Promissory Note, Deed of Guarantee, Mortgage Deed, Acknowledgment of Debt, Legal Notice, Certified Accounts Extract and Power of Attorney.

3. Further the Defendants agreed to repay the above loan with 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 to keep the account regular by paying installments as and when due to the 4TA.No.123/2017

satisfaction of the Applicant Bank, as detailed in the OA by the Applicant Bank.

4. The Defendants after utilizing the entire loan proceed for the above said purpose have failed to make the repayments of the loan dues as agreed and they have not serviced the loan as per the terms and conditions. The Defendants have become chronic defaulters in the loan account and not taken any steps to clear the dues and hence, the recovery process is initiated against the defendants to recover the dues.

5. In the light of these factors, it is contended by the Applicant Bank that, defendants are liable to pay a total sum of Rs.14,10,627/- (Rupees fourteen lakh, ten thousand, six hundred and twenty-seven only) together with interest and costs.

6. After transfer of the OA, summons was served on defendants No.1 & 2 through RPAD, and summons of defendants No.3 & 4 returned with postal shara as "Person not in station". Thereafter, summons published against the defendants No.3 & 4

5TA.No.123/2017

through paper publication in two daily newspapers. Even then, when the defendants were called out, they are remained absent and placed *ex-parte*.

7. To prove the case of the Applicant Bank, it's Branch Manager – Mr. Lawrence Alfred Boipai has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and same was considered as evidence of AW-1 and marked at Ex. A-1 and list of documents came to be marked as Ex.A-2 and 13 documents came to be marked as Ex.A-3 to Ex.A-15.

8. No evidence on behalf of the Defendants.

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

10. Following points arise for my consideration:

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

2) What order?

6TA.No.123/2017

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

**REASONS**

12. Mr. Lawrence Alfred Boipai – Branch 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.A-3 to Ex.A-15, which clearly establish the case of the applicant bank to allow the present TA. Added to this, in spite of summons served on defendants No.1 and 2 through RPAD and inspite of paper publication to defendants No.3 and 4, all the Defendants remained absent. Hence, it is to be construed that they have admitted the entire case pleaded by the applicant bank as sought in the present TA.

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