Case Summary
Bank of Baroda filed a suit against Ratheesh P.S for recovery of an outstanding loan amount. The defendant defaulted on the repayment, leading to the bank declaring the loan as a Non-Performing Asset.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
₹5,82,016.68 with 9% interest per annum from the date of suit until realization
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit was decreed directing the defendant to pay ₹5,82,016.68 along with interest. The plaintiff is also entitled to recover costs of litigation.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The court found adequate proof from the plaintiff's unchallenged affidavit and documents supporting the claim for recovery.
The court found adequate proof from the plaintiff's unchallenged affidavit and documents supporting the claim for recovery.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The court found adequate proof from the plaintiff's unchallenged affidavit and documents supporting the claim for recovery.
The court found adequate proof from the plaintiff's unchallenged affidavit and documents supporting the claim for recovery.
Supporting Evidence
The unchallenged proof affidavit and documents would satisfactorily prove the plaint claim.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is decreed directing the defendant to pay an amount of ₹5,82,016.68 (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand Sixteen point Sixty Eight Paise Only) with 9% interest per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Bank of Baroda
- Relation
- represented by its Chief Manager, Manohar M
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ratheesh P.S
- Party Age
- 43
- Relation
- S/o Sidharthan
Plaintiffs Documents
Loan Application form under Pradhan Manthri Mudre Yojana, Sanction Letter, Various security documents executed by the defendant.
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Thomas T Varghese
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Achu Subha Abraham
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Amala Purushothaman
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Teenu Joseph
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Kallyani G Menon
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- C.Swaminathan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Maria Angel
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Hafnitha mol K.H
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Jayalakshmi Dileep
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Recovery
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
The court ordered the defendant to pay the outstanding amount due to the plaintiff.
Evidence:
The suit is decreed directing the defendant to pay an amount of ₹5,82,016.68 with 9% interest per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree.
Relief Type:
Interest
Outcome:
Partly Granted
Description:
Interest was granted at a specific rate until the realization of the decree amount.
Evidence:
In default, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the decree amount from the defendant and from his assets with post decretal interest @ 6% per annum.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Loan Application
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The plaintiff submitted this document to support the claim regarding the loan application made by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Sanction letter
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This letter was issued by the plaintiff and accepted by the defendant as proof of the sanctioned loan.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Letter of Sole Proprietorship
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document establishes the defendant's status as the sole proprietor.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Agreement for Composite Hypothecation
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This agreement outlines the hypothecation details agreed upon by the parties.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Declaration cum Undertakings cum Authority
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was executed by the defendant as part of the loan agreement.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Demand Promissory Note
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This note was issued by the plaintiff for ₹3,49,000/- and is relevant to the loan repayment.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Letter of installment with acceleration clause
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This letter outlines the installment plan agreed upon by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Demand Promissory Note
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This second note was issued by the plaintiff for ₹3,00,000/- and is part of the financial agreement.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type:
Letter of Continuing Security
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This letter executed by the defendant serves as ongoing security for the loans.
Reference:
Ext.A9
Document Type:
Letter of acknowledgment of debt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This letter indicates the defendant's acknowledgment of debt on the overdraft account.
Reference:
Ext.A10
Document Type:
Letters of Acknowledgment of Debt
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document acknowledges the defendant's debt on the term loan.
Reference:
Ext.A11
Document Type:
Office copy of lawyer notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This notice was issued by the plaintiff to demand repayment.
Reference:
Ext.A12
Document Type:
Notices Returned Unserved
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
These notices indicate attempts to contact the defendant that were unsuccessful.
Reference:
Ext.A13series
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Statement of Term Loan Account
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document provides a detailed statement of the defendant's term loan account.
Reference:
Ext.A14
Document Type:
Certified Copy of Statement of Overdraft Loan Account
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document provides a detailed statement of the defendant's overdraft account.
Reference:
Ext.A15
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Money and Loan Recovery
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Recovery of money
Case Code
Case between Bank of Baroda represented by its Chief Manager, Manohar M vs Ratheesh P.S regarding recovery of money
Case Code Year
Case between Bank of Baroda represented by its Chief Manager, Manohar M vs Ratheesh P.S regarding recovery of money