Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
OS.No.316/2021

Case between Bank of Baroda vs Rajani.K.G. regarding recovery of money.

Court
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-III
Judge
Smt. Sreelakshmi.C
Order Date
2025-09-27
Duration
approximately-7 years 7 months
Case Code No.
316
Case Closed
Sat, 09/27/2025 - 12:00

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

The Bank of Baroda, represented by its Chief Manager, filed a suit against Rajani.K.G. for the recovery of a loan amount due. The defendant defaulted on repayment despite being duly served with summons and was set ex parte.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff for the recovery of ₹2,14,229/- with interest at the rate of 9.95% per annum. The court found that the defendant owed the amount and had defaulted on repayments.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Plaintiff is allowed to realise ₹2,14,229/- and interest at the rate of 9.95% per annum with monthly rests.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff for the recovery of ₹2,14,229/- with interest at the rate of 9.95% per annum. The court found that the defendant owed the amount and had defaulted on repayments.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The evidence produced by the plaintiff was unchallenged as the defendant was set ex parte.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
Not available
Supporting Evidence
The evidence of the plaintiff is unchallenged because the defendant was set ex parte and PW1 was not cross-examined.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, suit is decreed with costs as follows: 1.Plaintiff is allowed to realise ₹2,14,229/- from the defendant and her assets.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Bank of Baroda
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Rajani.K.G.
Party Age
33
Relation
W/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Memorandum for Sanction/Letter of Sanction dated 27/02/2018, Demand Promissory Note dated 27/02/2018, Statement of Accounts.
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Mini Girish
Appearance Type
Main Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiff is allowed to recover ₹2,14,229/- from the defendant and her assets.
Evidence:
Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to realise ₹2,14,229/- with interest at the rate of 9.95% per annum with monthly rests from the date of suit till date of decree.
Relief Type: Interest
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiff is allowed to recover interest at the rate of 9.95% per annum from the loan disbursement date.
Evidence:
Plaintiff is allowed to realise interest at the rate of 9.95% per annum with monthly rests from 27/02/2018 till the date of decree.
Relief Type: Future Interest
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiff is allowed to recover future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the decree.
Evidence:
Plaintiff is allowed to realise future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation.
Relief Type: Costs
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiff is allowed to recover costs of the suit from the defendant and her assets.
Evidence:
Plaintiff is allowed to realise the costs of the suit from the defendant and his assets.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Memorandum for Sanction/Letter
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document serves as the memorandum for the sanctioned loan to the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Demand Promissory Note
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This is the document where the defendant acknowledges the loan and the repayment terms.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: General Undertaking
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document outlines the general terms of the loan agreement signed by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Statement of Accounts
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document provides a detailed account of the transactions related to the loan.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Copy of Lawyer’s notice
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document evidences the demand made to the defendant for repayment of the loan.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Postal Receipts
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document provides evidence of the mailing of the lawyer's notice to the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Certificate of Unapplied Interest
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This certifies the unapplied interest on the defendant's loan account.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type: Agreement of Hypothecation
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document details the hypothecation agreement related to the loan.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type: Acknowledgment card
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This card acknowledges the receipt of documents by the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A9
Document Type: Certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This certificate is dated and signifies the completion of necessary documentation.
Reference:
Ext.A10

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Money and Loan Recovery
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Common Reasons
Recovery of money
Case Code
OS.NO.
Case Code Year
2021

Quick Facts

Location
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
District
Thiruvananthapuram
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court Thiruvananthapuram
Case Filed
Tue, 02/27/2018 - 12:00
Case Closed
Sat, 09/27/2025 - 12:00
From
Mon, 09/01/2025 - 12:00
To
Tue, 09/30/2025 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
95%

Involved Entities

Bank

Similar Cases

Case between Canara Bank vs M/s M.R.K Agency regarding realization of money.
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Federal Bank Ltd vs Rohil. V et al regarding Suit for realisation of money.
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Kerala Gramin Bank vs Shibu.V et al regarding realisation of money
THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-III
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Kerala Gramin Bank vs Velamkanni Matha JLG Vizhinjam Unit et al regarding realization of money.
COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF (RCC)
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Kerala Gramin Bank vs Ayodhya Kudumbasree et al regarding recovery of money.
COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won