Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. Sanjay Thorat

DRT19 Dec 2022OA/33/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Indian Overseas Bank for recovery of dues aggregating Rs. 24,98,031 and interest against four respondents, including borrowers and guarantors, holding them liable jointly or severally.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay aggregate sum of Rs.24,98,031 with future interest @9% p.a. from 26th October 2021; mortgaged properties to be sold for recovery; Recovery Certificate to be issued.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Sanjay Thorat — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2022)

¶1

Presented on: 26.10.2021 Registered on: 11.01.2022 Decided on: 19.12.2022 Duration: Y M D 01 01 23

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer)

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.33/2022

¶4

Indian Overseas Bank A body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 and having its head office at 762, Anna Salai, Chennai, 600002, Tamilnadu State and its branch at Indian Overseas Bank, Mahatma Phule Road, Indapur, Maharashtra 413 106.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Sanjay Vitthal Thorat R/at: post Arjunnagar, Taluka Karmala, Dist. Solapur – 413 203

¶8

Mrs. Usha Sanjay Thorat

¶9

R/at: post Arjunnagar, Taluka Karmala, Dist. Solapur – 413 203

¶10

3 Mr. Navnath Bhagwath Dhumal R/at: post Arjunnagar, Taluka

(OA No.33/2022)

(srd)

Page 1 of 6

Karmala, Dist. Solapur – 413 203

¶15

4 Mr. Ramdas Shamroa Bhoge R/at: 42B, Arjunnagar Gaothan, at post Arjunnagar, Taluka Karmala, Dist. Solapur – 413 203

¶16

… Defendants

¶17

APPEARANCES For the Applicant For Defendants

¶18

Mrs. Sudha Koloti – Advocate None (Ex parte)

¶19

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs. 24,98,031.40 Ps

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

(Delivered on 19^th December, 2022)

¶22

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of aggregate sum Rs.24,98,031.40Ps i.e. Rs.9,60,000 /- (Term Loan) together with future interest thereon @12.75% per annum with yearly rests and Rs.2,40,000/- (KCC) together with future interest thereon @11% per annum with yearly rests plus penal interest @2% from 5^th September, 2021 till repayment/realization of entire dues from the defendants.

¶23

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶24

The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 approached the applicant Bank seeking financial assistance for agriculture and after due consideration, the applicant Bank on 8^th July, 2014 sanctioned and disbursed Agri Credit Facilities for an amount of

(OA No.33/2022)

(srd)

Page 2 of 6

Rs.12,00,000/- consisting of two facilities i.e. Agriculture Term Loan under IOB Green Credit Scheme for an amount of Rs.9,60,000/- and Agri Kisan Credit Card (KCC) for an amount of Rs.2,40,000/-. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 stood as guarantors to the Agri Credit facilities sanctioned to defendant Nos.1 and 2.

¶29

The defendants executed necessary loan transaction and security documents and also created equitable mortgage in respect of the immovable properties in favour of the applicant Bank as set out in paragraph No.5.10 of the Original Application.

¶30

It is contended by the applicant Bank that the loan account of defendant borrower is declared as Fraud and have lodged complaint with Central Bureau of Investigation. The original documents are in custody of the CBI, Pune. The CBI, Pune by letter dated 21^st February, 2017 has acknowledged the receipt of the documents. Accordingly, the applicant Bank classified the loan Account as Non-Performing Asset on 31^st March, 2017 as per RBI Guidelines.

¶31

Thereafter, on 16^th June, 2021 the applicant Bank issued Legal Notice to the defendants calling upon them to pay the outstanding loan amount. Despite service of Notice, defendants failed and neglected to comply with the demand in the said Notice.

(OA No.33/2022)

(srd)

Page 3 of 6

Hence, this application is filed.

¶36

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex parte against them vide Order dated 13^th July, 2022 passed below the Application (Exhibit-01).

¶37

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Pawan Kishore, Branch Manager which supports the case of the applicant Bank elucidated in the application.

¶38

The defendants have committed fraud and criminal action is initiated against them by the applicant Bank. Therefore, CBI has called for original document from the applicant Bank. Thus, the applicant Bank has led secondary evidence by filing Notarized copies of documents at Sr.No.AW-1/2 to AW-1/9. The documents from AW-1/10 to AW-1/20 are filed in original.

¶39

Since the complaint is in process and the same facts have been mentioned in the Claim Affidavit, I take into consideration the secondary evidence in respect of loan documents led by the applicant Bank.

¶40

I have heard arguments of the learned Advocate for the applicant Bank.

¶41

Since the defendants failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of the applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for

(OA No.33/2022)

(srd)

Page 4 of 6

reliefs as claimed.

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @12.75% per annum with half yearly rests for Term Loan account and @11% p.a. with yearly rests for KCC account. However, considering the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @11% per annum (simple) for both the facilities, it would be just and reasonable.

¶47

Hence, I pass the following order: -

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(A) Original Application No.33/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶50

(B) Defendant Nos.1 to 4 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the aggregate sum of Rs.24,98,031/- (Rupees Twenty-Four Lakhs NinetyEight Thousand Thirty-One only) with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 26^th October, 2021 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶51

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage of immovable properties i.e. All that piece and parcel of Agricultural land bearing (1) Gat no.3/1, total

(OA No.33/2022)

(srd)

Page 5 of 6

admeasuring area about 1 H 91R+PK 0H 2R total 1H 93R (2) Gat No.3/4 total admeasuring area about 1H 89R+PK 0H 01R total 1H 90R (3) Gat No.4 total admeasuring area about 6H 52R +PK 0H 19R total 6H 71R situated at village Arjunnagar, Taluka Karmala, Dist. Solapur within the jurisdiction of Division Solapur, Sub-Division and Taluka Karmala and within the sub limits of Sub-Registrar Karmala, District Solapur together with all trees, crop (existing and future) standing on the land and superstructure, fixtures and fitting including building, machinery, pipeline etc. presently installed and/or that may be installed thereon.

¶56

(D) The applicant is entitled to sell the mortgaged properties to recover its dues.

¶57

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶58

(F) The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant and defendants.

¶59

Place: Pune Date: 19.12.2022

¶60

Sd/(Dilip G Murumkar) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune

¶61

(OA No.33/2022)

¶62

(srd)

¶63

Page 6 of 6

Indian Overseas Bank v. Sanjay Thorat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. Sanjay Thorat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Palm Kernal India Pvt. Ltd. versus Indian Overseas Bank

Indian Overseas Bank versus Mr. Nitinbhai Sanmukhbhai Patel S/O. Sanmukhbhai Dhaya Patel

Saptatara Agro Products Private Ltd. versus Indian Overseas Bank

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Ajit Patil

Rbl Bank Ltd. versus Ms Abhiraj Corporation

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S Daily Janapravas Prop Sanjay Pralhad Bhokare