Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S. No. 444/2023

Case between Bank of Baroda vs Laila Nazar et al regarding realization of money.

Court
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOTTAYAM
Judge
Smt. Indu. P. Raj
Order Date
2025-10-15
Duration
approximately-5 years 9 months
Case Closed
Wed, 10/15/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The plaintiff, Bank of Baroda, is seeking to recover a loan amount from the defendants who failed to comply with repayment terms. The defendants did not file a written statement despite entering appearance.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendants to pay the outstanding loan amount along with interest.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Defendants shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs.3,73,061/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of realization of the sum.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendants to pay the outstanding loan amount along with interest.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The evidence adduced by the plaintiff was sufficient to establish the claim.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The evidence adduced by the plaintiff was sufficient to establish the claim.
Supporting Evidence
The plaint averments, affidavit and the documents would establish the case of the plaintiff. There is no evidence to rebut the evidence adduced on the side of the plaintiff.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: It is ordered that the defendants shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs.3,73,061/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand and Sixty One Only) along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of realization of the sum.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Bank of Baroda
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Laila Nazar
Relation
W/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Rajini M V
Relation
D/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Demand promissory note, Mutual Liability Agreement, Composite Hypothecation Agreement for Agriculture Finance, Legal Notice.
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Gayathri Vijayan
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The defendants are ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of Rs.3,73,061/- along with interest.
Evidence:
Hence the suit is decreed as follows: It is ordered that the defendants shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs.3,73,061/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand and Sixty One Only) along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of realization of the sum.
Relief Type: Costs
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiff is entitled to realise the costs from the defendants.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is entitled to realise the costs from the defendants.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Demand Promissory Note
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Signed by the 1st and the 2nd defendant as part of the loan agreement.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Mutual Liability Agreement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Executed by the member of the Joint Liability Group to secure the loan.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Composite Hypothecation Agreement for Agriculture Finance
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Secured the credit facility sanctioned to the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: General Undertaking
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Part of the loan documentation.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Letter of authority
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Authorized the bank to proceed with the loan.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Declaration – cum - undertaking – cum - Authority
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Provided additional assurance regarding the loan repayment.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Letter of Continuing Security
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Ensured ongoing collateral for the loan.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type: Legal Notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Sent to demand payment of the overdue loan amount.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type: Postal Receipts
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proof of sending the legal notice.
Reference:
Ext.A9
Document Type: Returned Cover and Acknowledgment Card
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
Indicated that the legal notice was unclaimed.
Reference:
Ext.A10

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Money and Loan Recovery
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Kottayam
Common Reasons
Recovery of money
Case Code
Case between Bank of Baroda vs Laila Nazar et al regarding realization of money.
Case Code Year
Case between Bank of Baroda vs Laila Nazar et al regarding realization of money.

Quick Facts

Location
Kottayam
District
Kottayam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Kottayam
Case Filed
Mon, 01/27/2020 - 12:00
Case Closed
Wed, 10/15/2025 - 12:00
From
Fri, 08/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Fri, 10/31/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
100%

Involved Entities

Bank

Similar Cases

Case between Bank of Baroda vs Laila Nazar et al regarding realization of money
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOTTAYAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between The Bank of Baroda vs Chikku Nainan et al regarding realization of money
IN THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOTTAYAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between The South Indian Bank Ltd. vs Supriya Biju et al regarding realization of money for education loan.
Court of the Munsiff, Kottayam
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between U C O Bank vs Restin K Mathew regarding realization of money
Munsiff Court, Kottayam
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Canara Bank vs Mathew Skariah et al regarding Suit for realisation of money.
IN THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOTTAYAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won