Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Kfc Sofas and Furniture Prop Mrs. Renuka Gaurav Kokane Alias Miss. Renuka Balasaheb Rahane

DRT4 Dec 2023OA/102/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune, allowed the applicant bank's original application filed for recovery of dues. The respondent, having contested ex-parte, was directed to pay the principal sum along with future interest at 9% per annum, and the applicant was granted a Recovery Certificate and right to sell hypothecated property.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed: Respondent to pay Rs. 27,60,156/- plus future interest @ 9% p.a. from filing date; Recovery Certificate issued; Applicant entitled to sell hypothecated property.

State Bank of India versus M/S Kfc Sofas and Furniture Prop… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

Presented on : 24.12.2021 Registered on : 09.02.2022 Decided on : 04.12.2023 Duration : Y M D 01 11 10

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE

¶3

(Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 102/2022.

¶4

State Bank of India,

¶5

A Banking Company constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and having its Corporate Office at State Bank Bhavan, Nariman Point, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai 400021 and its branch at – Sudharma Complex, Kalyan Nagar Road, Alephata, Taluka Junnar, District Pune 412411.

¶6

.. Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mrs. Renuka Gaurav Kokane @ Miss Renuka Balasaheb Rahane, Prop. M/s KFC Sofas and Furniture, NH 222 Ane Malshej, Ale Lavanwadi, Taluka Junnar, District Pune 412411.

¶9

.. Defendant

¶10

APPEARANCES

¶11

For Applicant Smt. Sudha Kaloti - Advocate For Defendant Ex parte.

¶12

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.27,60,156/-

(OA No.102/2022)

Page 1 of 5

Sanap

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 04^th December, 2023)

¶17

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.27,60,156/- together with future interest @11.15% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendant.

¶18

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶19

Defendant is the proprietor of M/s. KFC Sofas and Furniture. The defendant approached the applicant with application dated 15.03.2018 for business loan of Rs.47,00,000/-. As per the loan application of defendant, applicant Bank sanctioned two facilities i.e. Cash Credit of Rs.25,00,000/- and Term Loan of Rs.22,00,000/- to the defendant vide sanction letter 23.04.2018. The defendant agreed to pay interest @ 11.15% per annum with monthly rests.

¶20

In order to secure the aforesaid Cash Credit facility and Term Loan, the defendant executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank along with deed of hypothecation of equipments in favour of the applicant Bank. The defendant has also executed Revival Letter dated 22.01.2021 and thereby admitted the liability.

(OA No.102/2022)

Page 2 of 5

Sanap

The applicant Bank contended that the defendant committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Therefore, on 14.12.2020, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendant. Despite service of Notice, the defendant failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank.

¶25

Hence, this application is filed.

¶26

The defendant failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 25.01.2023 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶27

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Dipti Naresh Gilbile, Chief Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1 to AW-14 alongwith list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶28

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

¶29

Since the defendant 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.102/2022)

Page 3 of 5

Sanap

reliefs as claimed.

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @11.15% per annum. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶35

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶36

ORDER

¶37

(A) Original Application No.102/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶38

(B) The defendant shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.27,60,156/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Sixty Thousand One Hundred Fifty Six only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 24.12.2021 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶39

¶40

properties equipments particularly described in the Para No. 5.8 of the Original Application.

(OA No.102/2022)

Page 4 of 5

Sanap

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the hypothecated property to recover its dues.

¶45

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶46

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

¶47

Place : Pune Date : 04.12.2023

¶48

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

¶49

(OA No.102/2022)

¶50

Page 5 of 5

¶51

Sanap

State Bank of India v. M/S Kfc Sofas and Furniture Prop Mrs. Renuka Gaurav Kokane Alias Miss. Renuka Balasaheb Rahane

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Kfc Sofas and Furniture Prop Mrs. Renuka Gaurav Kokane Alias Miss. Renuka Balasaheb Rahane

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

Union Bank of India versus Late Parvati Annaso Patil (Deceased)

Bank of Maharashtra versus Ajit Garments Prop Shri. Ajit Sahebrao Thorat

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus Mahantesh Swami

Hdfc Bank versus Mr. Rakesh Rajpal Prop M/S Rajpal Auto Lounge

Bank of Baroda versus Abhishek Patil

Bank of Maharashtra versus Vikram