Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. Atul Atakare

DRT26 Apr 2023OA/105/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Indian Overseas Bank for recovery of loans. The court adjudicated a sum secured by mortgage and granted future interest at 9%, noting defendants appeared ex parte.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs.44,11,198/- with future interest at 9% per annum; recovery secured by specific mortgaged properties; recovery certificate to be issued.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Atul Atakare — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

Presented on: 26.10.2021 Registered on: 12.01.2022 Decided on: 26.04.2023 Duration: Y M D 1 06 -

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.105/2022

¶3

Indian Overseas Bank

¶4

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, Mahatma Phule Road, Indapur, Maharashtra 413 106.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Atul Prabhakar Atakare At Post Arjunnagar, Taluka Karmala, District Solapur – 413 203

¶8

Mr. Maruti Prabhakar Atakare At Post Arjunnagar, Taluka Karmala, District Solapur – 413 203

¶9

Mr. Jayram Prabhakar Atakare At post Arjunnagar, Taluka Karmala,

(OA No.105/2022)

Page 1 of 7

[SRD]

District Solapur – 413 203

¶14

Mr. Satish Shivaji Bhoge At post Arjunnagar, Taluka Karmala, District Solapur – 413 203

¶15

Mr. Ramdas Shamrao Bhonge (Bhoge) At post Arjunnagar, Taluka Karmala, … Defendants

¶16

District Solapur – 413 203

¶17

APPEARANCES

¶18

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

¶19

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.44,11,197.53Ps

¶20

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 26^th April, 2023)

¶21

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of aggregate sum Rs.44,11,197.53Ps i.e. Rs.33,55,803.71Ps. (Agri Term Loan) together with future interest thereon @12.75% per annum with half yearly rests from 5^th September, 2021 and Rs.10,55,393.82Ps (KCC) together with future interest thereon @13.25% per annum with yearly rests from 5^th September, 2021 till repayment/ realization of entire dues from the defendants.

¶22

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶23

The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 as Principal borrowers along

(OA No.105/2022)

Page 2 of 7

[SRD]

with defendant Nos. 4 and 5 approached the applicant Bank seeking financial assistance for need of funds for land development, pipeline and cultivation of Sugarcane and after due consideration, the applicant Bank on 8^th July, 2014 sanctioned and disbursed Agri Credit Facilities for an amount of Rs.19,00,000/- consisting of two Facilities i.e. Agriculture Term Loan under IOB Green Credit Scheme for an amount of Rs.14,50,000/- and Agri Kisan Credit Card (KCC) for an amount of Rs.4,50,000/-. Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 stood as guarantors to the Agri Credit facilities sanctioned to Defendant Nos. 1 to 2.

¶28

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 and 5.10 of the Original Application.

¶29

It is contended by the applicant Bank that the loan account of 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. Therefore, the applicant Bank is producing the Photo copies as secondary evidence along with copy of seizer letter of CBI. The CBI, Pune by letter dated 21^st February, 2017 has acknowledged the receipt

(OA No.105/2022)

Page 3 of 7

[SRD]

of the documents.

The applicant Bank contended that standard status loan accounts could not sustain for long and accounts became irregular due to non-repayment of the Principal and Interest as per terms of sanction. Further, applicant Bank called upon defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and its guarantors to make repayments of the loan amount due and payable by them number of times but defendant Nos. 1 to 5 have not responded. In spite of all the reminders until the date defendants neither made any efforts to approach applicant Bank nor paid any amount due and payable to regularize its loan account. Therefore, the account of the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 was classified as NonPerforming Asset on 31^st March, 2017.

¶35

Thereafter, on 16^th June, 2021 the applicant Bank through its advocate 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.

¶36

Hence, this application is filed.

¶37

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).

(OA No.105/2022)

Page 4 of 7

[SRD]

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.

¶42

The applicant Bank has produced on record the True Copy/ Original/Notarized loan transaction and security documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1/1 to AW-1/21 which corroborate the case of the applicant Bank.

¶43

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

¶44

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.

¶45

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

¶46

Hence, I pass the following order: -

(OA No.105/2022)

Page 5 of 7

[SRD]

ORDER

(A) Original Application No.105/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶52

(B) Defendant Nos.1 to 5 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the aggregate sum of Rs.44,11,198/- (Rupees Forty-Four Lakhs Eleven Thousand One Hundred Ninety-Eight only) with future interest @9% per annum for both the loan accounts 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.

¶53

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by mortgage of immovable properties i.e. all that piece and parcel of Agricultural Land

¶54

In Gat No. 17/2 totally admeasuring area about 1 H 27 R, the entire land belongs to Mr. Atul Prabhakar Atakare

¶55

In Gat No. 17/3 totally admeasuring area about 1 H 28 R, the entire land belongs to Mr. Maruti Prabhakar Atakare.

¶56

In Gat No. 17/1 totally admeasuring area about 1 H 27 R, the entire land belongs to Mr. Jayram

(OA No.105/2022)

Page 6 of 7

[SRD]

Prabhakar Atakare

Situated at village Arjunnagar, Tal. Karmala, Dist. Solapur within the jurisdiction of Division – Solapur, Sub – Division & Taluka and within Sub – Registrar, Karmala, Dist. Solapur.

¶62

Together with all trees, crops (existing and future) standing on the land and superstructure, fixtures and sittings including building, machinery, pipeline etc. presently installed and/or that may be installed thereon, in favour of the applicant Bank, more particularly described in paragraph No.5.10 of the Original Application.

¶63

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

¶64

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶65

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

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

Place: Pune Date: 26.04.2023

¶68

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

¶69

(OA No.105/2022)

¶70

Page 7 of 7

¶71

[SRD]

Indian Overseas Bank v. Atul Atakare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. Atul Atakare

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

Dr. Santosh Uttam Sawane and others versus Indostar Capital Finance Limited

Ms Shreevardhan Agro Pvt. Ltd. versus Indus Orgo Farmers Allied Industries Private Limited

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sou. Seema Maruti Sonawane, Proprietress of Shree Ganesh Industries

Samkit Shantilal Pomani versus State Bank of India

Bank of Maharashtra versus Bhausaheb Yadav