Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. Indrajeet Salunke

DRT3 Aug 2023OA/103/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an ex parte application filed by Indian Overseas Bank for recovery of agricultural and KCC loan dues totaling Rs. 24,24,621. The tribunal reduced the future interest rate to 9% p.a. and directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate and sale of mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly or severally to pay Rs.24,24,621 with future interest at 9% p.a. from Oct 22, 2021. Issuance of Recovery Certificate and permit to sell mortgaged property.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Indrajeet Salunke — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

Presented on: 22.10.2021 Registered on: 12.01.2022 Decided on: 03.08.2023 Duration: Y M D 01 09 12

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.103/2022

¶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, 600 002, Tamil Nadu State and its branch at Indian Overseas Bank, Mahatma Phule Road, Indapur, Maharashtra 413 106.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Indrajeet Dinkar Salunke At Post Satoli, Taluka Karmala, District Solapur – 413 202

¶8

Mr. Kishor Indrajeet Salunke At Post Satoli, Taluka Karmala, District Solapur – 413 202

¶9

Mr. Vasant Nagnath Salunke 9, Satoli, Taluka Karmala, District Solapur – 413 202

(OA No.103/2022)

Page 1 of 7

[SRD]

Mr. Suryakant Pandharinath Salunke Gharkul 132, Satoli, Taluka Karmala, District Solapur – 413 202 … Defendants

¶14

APPEARANCES

¶15

For the Applicant	Mrs. Sudha Koloti – Advocate
For Defendants	None(Exparte)

¶16

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.24,24,621.17Ps.

¶17

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 3^rd August, 2023)

¶18

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of aggregate sum Rs.24,24,621.17Ps i.e. Rs.16,93,568.76Ps. (Agri Term Loan) together with future interest thereon @12.75% per annum with half yearly rests from 5^th September, 2021 and Rs.7,31,052.41Ps. (KCC Loan) together with future interest thereon @13.25% per annum with yearly rests from 2^nd March, 2021 respectively, till repayment/realization of entire dues from the defendants.

¶19

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶20

The defendant No. 1 and 2 through defendant Nos. 3 and 4 approached the applicant Bank seeking financial assistance

(OA No.103/2022)

Page 2 of 7

[SRD]

for land development, pipeline and cultivation of Sugarcane and after due consideration, the applicant Bank on 28^th April, 2014 sanctioned and disbursed Agri Credit Facilities for an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- consisting of two Facilities i.e. Agriculture Term Loan under IOB Green Credit Scheme for an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- and Agri Kisan Credit Card (KCC) for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- respectively. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 stood as Guarantors to above said Agri Credit Facilities availed by defendant Nos.1 and 2.

¶25

The defendants executed necessary loan transaction and security documents, Hypothecation and also created Registered Mortgage in respect of the immovable properties in favour of the applicant Bank as set out in paragraph Nos. 5.7, 5.8 and 5.10 of the Original Application.

¶26

It is contended by the applicant Bank that the loan account of defendant borrower is declared as Fraud and applicant Bank has lodged complaint with Central Bureau of Investigation. The original documents are in custody of the CBI, ACB, Pune. The CBI, Pune by letter dated 21^st February, 2017 has acknowledged the receipt of the documents.

¶27

The applicant Bank contended that the loan accounts of the

(OA No.103/2022)

Page 3 of 7

[SRD]

defendants became irregular due to non-repayment of Principal and Interest as per terms of sanction. The applicant Bank called up defendant Nos. 1and 2 and its Guarantors and also sent number of reminders for payment but of no avail. In spite of all the reminders, until date defendants neither made any efforts to approach the applicant Bank and nor regularize the loan accounts. Therefore, the applicant Bank classified the loan Accounts as Non-Performing Asset on 31^st March, 2017.

¶32

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.

¶33

Hence, this application is filed.

¶34

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex parte against them vide Order dated 25^th January, 2023 passed below the Application (Exhibit-01).

¶35

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.

¶36

The applicant Bank has produced on record the Original

(OA No.103/2022)

Page 4 of 7

[SRD]

/True Copy/Notarized Copy loan transaction and security documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1/1 to AW-1/18 which corroborate the case of the applicant Bank.

¶41

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

¶42

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 reliefs as claimed.

¶43

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @12.75% per annum with half yearly rests for Agri Term Loan Account and @13.25% per annum with yearly rests for KCC account respectively. However, considering the facts of the present case, if the future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple) for both the accounts, it would be just and reasonable.

¶44

Hence, I pass the following order: -

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(A) Original Application No. 103/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶47

(B) Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank towards Agri Term Loan account and KCC account respectively, the aggregate sum of Rs.24,24,621/- (Rupees Twenty-

(OA No.103/2022)

Page 5 of 7

[SRD]

Four Lakhs Twenty-Four Thousand Six Hundred Twenty-One only) with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 22^nd October, 2021 till payment/ realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶52

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by valid and subsisting mortgage of immovable property i.e. All that piece and parcel of Agricultural Land in,

¶53

Gat No. 66/4 totally admeasuring area about 1 H 44 R

¶54

Gat No.65/3 totally admeasuring area about 1 H 50 R

¶55

Situated at village Satoli, Taluka Karmala, District Solapur within the jurisdiction of Division Solapur, Sub-Division and Taluka Karmala, District Solapur.

¶56

Together with all trees, crop (existing and future) standing on the land and superstructure, fixtures and fittings including buildings, machinery, pipeline etc., presently installed and/or that may install thereon, more particularly mentioned in

(OA No.103/2022)

Page 6 of 7

[SRD]

paragraph No. 5.10 of the Original Application.

¶61

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

¶62

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶63

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

¶64

Place: Pune Date: 03.08.2023

¶65

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

¶66

(OA No.103/2022)

¶67

Page 7 of 7

¶68

[SRD]

Indian Overseas Bank v. Indrajeet Salunke

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. Indrajeet Salunke

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

State Bank of India versus M/S. Ar Landmark LLP

Indian Overseas Bank versus Nana Kare

Pandurang Ramchandra Kale versus Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank

Encore Assets Reconstruction Company Private Limited versus M/S. Dilip Gyanaba Zol, Prop. Dilip Gynaba Zol

Union Bank of India versus Shri. Mahesh Siddheshwar Manekar

Bank of Maharashtra versus Phadtare Fabtech Pvt. Ltd.