Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S No. 110/2025

Case between Bank of Baroda vs Sujith T.S regarding recovery of money.

Court
THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Sri. Nanda Krishna M.
Order Date
2026-01-17
Duration
approximately-1 year 6 days
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Bank of Baroda filed a suit against Sujith T.S for the recovery of a loan amount of Rs. 1,87,444.53 due to continuous defaults in payments. The court found in favor of the plaintiff bank after the defendant failed to appear.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court decreed the suit in favor of Bank of Baroda, ordering Sujith T.S to pay Rs. 1,87,444.53 along with interest. The court noted the defendant's failure to appear as a significant factor in the decision.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The defendant is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,87,444.53 with 11% interest per annum from the date of the suit till the date of the decree.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed the suit in favor of Bank of Baroda, ordering Sujith T.S to pay Rs. 1,87,444.53 along with interest. The court noted the defendant's failure to appear as a significant factor in the decision.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The unchallenged proof affidavit and documents satisfactorily proved the plaint claim.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The unchallenged proof affidavit and documents satisfactorily proved the plaint claim.
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 defendants to pay an amount of 1,87,444.53/-...

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Bank of Baroda
Relation
Represented by
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Sujith T.S
Party Age
41
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Sanction letter, Demand Promissory note, Letter of installment with acceleration clause, Declaration cum undertaking cum Authority, Instrument of Hypothecation of vehicle, Letter of acknowledgment of debt.
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Santhosh G Prabhu
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Aswathy A
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Deepa N.U
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiff is granted the amount of Rs. 1,87,444.53 along with interest.
Evidence:
The suit is decreed directing the defendants to pay an amount of 1,87,444.53/-...
Relief Type: Interest
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiff is entitled to 11% interest per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree.
Evidence:
with 11% interest per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree.
Relief Type: Post Decretal Interest
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiff is entitled to post decretal interest at 6% per annum.
Evidence:
the plaintiff is entitled to recover the decree amount from the defendant and from his assets with post decretal interest @ 6% per annum.
Relief Type: Costs
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiff is awarded costs of litigation.
Evidence:
The plaintiff is also entitled to the costs of the litigation.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Sanction letter
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document represents the approved loan amount sanctioned to the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Demand Promissory Note
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document outlines the defendant's commitment to repay the loan borrowed from the plaintiff bank.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Letter of installment with acceleration clause
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document details the payment schedule and conditions tied to the loan agreement.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Declaration Cum Undertaking Cum Authority
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is a formal declaration of the terms agreed upon for the loan.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type: Instrument of Hypothecation of Vehicle
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document serves as security for the loan taken by the defendant against the vehicle.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type: Letter of acknowledgment of debt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document acknowledges the amount owed by the defendant on the specified date.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type: Letter of acknowledgment of debt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document acknowledges another amount owed by the defendant at a later date.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type: Lawyer notice issued to the defendant
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document is a legal notice calling for payment of outstanding dues.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type: Lawyer notice issued to the defendant
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This is another legal notice related to the recovery of outstanding dues.
Reference:
Ext.A9
Document Type: Postal receipt
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document serves as proof of dispatch for the legal notice sent to the defendant.
Reference:
Ext.A10
Document Type: Statement of Account
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document details the financial transactions in the loan account maintained by the plaintiff bank.
Reference:
Ext.A11

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 vs Sujith T.S regarding recovery of money.
Case Code Year
Case between Bank of Baroda vs Sujith T.S regarding recovery of money.

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Case Filed
Case Closed
From
Thu, 01/01/2026 - 12:00
To
Wed, 01/21/2026 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Bank

Similar Cases

Case between M/s IDBI Bank vs Shri. Sajeeb V.S regarding realization of money
IN THE COURT OF THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Bank of Baroda vs M/s M K S Agency, Sandhya Suresh regarding realization of money
Court of Munsiff, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Dhanalaxmi Bank Limited vs Thaslim Nazrin V M et al regarding realization of money
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Canara Bank vs Mrs. Preethymol P.T regarding realization of money
Court of the Third Addl. Munsiff & Rent Controller, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Bank of Baroda represented by its Chief Manager, Manohar M vs Ratheesh P.S regarding recovery of money
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won