Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Sudhir Chunekar

DRT4 Jul 2023OA/143/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Debt Recovery Tribunal application, Bank of Maharashtra sought recovery from a principal debtor and two guarantors for a defaulting term loan. Proceeding ex parte, the Tribunal allowed the application, reduced the claim amount by disallowing penal interest, and ordered future interest at 9% per annum. Reliefs secured the adjustment over mortgaged and hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Ordered respondents to pay Rs.14,91,955/- with interest at 9% per annum; directed sale of secured properties and issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sudhir Chunekar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

Presented on: 11.05.2018 Registered on: 07.02.2022 Decided on: 04.07.2023 Duration: Y M D 5 1 23

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.143/2022

¶4

Bank of Maharashtra, A body corporate established under the Banking companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970, having its Registered Office at “Lokmangal”, 1501, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411 005, and one of its branch office at Burondi, Taluka – Dapodi, District – Ratnagiri – 415 720

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Sudhir Kashinath Chunekar Age: Adult, Occ: Occupation R/at: Burondi, Taluka – Dapodi, District – Ratnagiri – 415 720

¶8

Mr. Mahesh Shridhar Gujarathi Age: Adult, Occ: Business, R/at: At & post Karajgaon Tamastirdha, Taluka – Dapoli, District – Ratnagiri – 415 720

¶9

[SRD] (OA No.143/2022)

¶10

Page 1 of 6

¶11

Mr. Hrushikesh Suhas Hadukar Age: Adult, Occ: Business, R/at: C/o Hotel Astha, Burondi Naka, Post Dapoli, Taluka – Dapoli, District – Ratnagiri – 415 712 … Defendants

¶12

APPEARANCES

¶13

For the Applicant	Mr. R B Ganbote - Advocate
For Defendants	None(Exparte)

¶14

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.15,04,850/-

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

(Delivered on 4^th July, 2023)

¶17

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of sum of Rs.15,04,850/- (Term Loan Account) together with future interest thereon @15.50% per annum from 11^th May, 2018 till repayment/realization of entire dues from the defendants.

¶18

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶19

Defendant No. 1 along with defendant Nos. 2 and 3 approached applicant Bank and requested for Term Loan. After due consideration the applicant Bank on 28^th December, 2012 sanctioned Term loan of Rs.20,00,000/- to defendant No.

¶20

[SRD] (OA No.143/2022)

¶21

Page 2 of 6

¶22

1 and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 stood as Guarantors to the said Term loan facility availed by defendant No. 1.

¶23

The defendants executed necessary loan transactions and security documents, Hypothecation and also created Mortgage in favour of the applicant Bank as described in paragraph Nos. 5.5 and 5.6 of the Original Application.

¶24

The applicant Bank contended that the defendant No. 1 has failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the sanction and also failed to pay the installments and interest in the Term Loan account and committed breach of sanction terms. Therefore, loan account was classified as NonPerforming Asset.

¶25

The applicant Bank issued Recall Notice on 19^th January, 2022 to the defendants for pay the outstanding loan amount. Despite service of Notice, defendants failed to pay the installments and regularize the loan account.

¶26

Hence, this application is filed.

¶27

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex parte against him vide Order dated 3^rd November, 2022 passed below the Application (Exhibit-01).

¶28

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence

¶29

[SRD] (OA No.143/2022)

¶30

Page 3 of 6

¶31

(Exhibit-6) of Mr. P. V. Gurunathan, Chief Manager which supports the case of the applicant Bank elucidated in the application.

¶32

The applicant Bank has produced on record the original loan transaction and security documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1/1 to AW-1/9 which corroborate the case of the applicant Bank.

¶33

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

¶34

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.

¶35

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @15.50% per annum for Term Loan account. However, considering the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable.

¶36

The applicant Bank has claimed Penal Interest of Rs.12,895/which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.15,04,850/- is reduced to Rs.14,91,955/-.

¶37

[SRD] (OA No.143/2022)

¶38

Page 4 of 6

¶39

Hence, I pass the following order: -

¶40

ORDER

¶41

(A) Original Application No. 143/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶42

(B) Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay towards Term Loan account to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.14,91,955/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Ninety-One Thousand Nine Hundred FiftyFive only) with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 11^th May, 2018 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶43

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by valid and subsisting mortgage of Fishing Boat called ‘Laxmi Krupa’, more particularly described in the paragraph No. 5.6 of the Original Application.

¶44

(D) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by valid and subsisting hypothecation of tools equipments/fixtures/boats/machines, tractor/ power tiller/tube well/ electric motors/diesel engine and other movables connected with and relating to farming/rearing of cattle and/or

¶45

[SRD] (OA No.143/2022)

¶46

Page 5 of 6

¶47

more flock/fishing/sericulture, particularly mentioned in Fourth Schedule of the Hypothecation Agreement of the Original Application.

¶48

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

¶49

(F) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶50

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

¶51

Place: Pune Date: 04.07.2023

¶52

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

¶53

[SRD] (OA No.143/2022)

¶54

Page 6 of 6

Bank of Maharashtra v. Sudhir Chunekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Sudhir Chunekar

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

Punjab National Bank versus Shree Sony Elevators Prop Mr. Dinesh Yashwant Desale

Union Bank of India versus Raygonda Baburao Patil

Union Bank of India versus Raygonda

Indian Overseas Bank versus Nitin Saluke

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Shri Avinash Annasaheb Musale, Prop. Mr. Avinash Annasaheb Musale

Bank of Maharashtra versus Dnyandev Shinde