Allowed

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

DRT26 Apr 2023OA/144/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In ex parte proceedings, the tribunal allowed an application for recovery of a term loan and future interest of Rs. 2,04,97,479/-, modified the future interest rate to 9% simple, and directed sale of mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 2,04,97,479/- with future interest at 9% p.a. from 19.11.2018. Mortgage property declared secure and sale directed.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sou. Seema Maruti Sonawane… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

Presented on: 19.11.2018 Registered on: 07.02.2022 Decided on: 26.04.2023 Duration: Y M D 4 5 7

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.144/2022

¶4

Bank of Maharashtra, A body corporate established under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and having its Registered Office at, Lokmangal, 1501, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411 005 and one of its Branch Office at Vishal Enclave, Shivarkar Road, Wanawadi, Pune – … Applicant 40 known as Fatimanagar Branch

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mrs. Seema Maruti Sonawane, Age: Adult, Occ: Business, Proprietor of Shree Ganesh Industries, R/at: Anandi Niwas, S. No. 13, Hissa No. 4B/1A/1B/1/1/2, Ajinkay Colony, Opp. Akashwani, Near Hotel Vaishali, Hadapsar,

(OA No.144/2022)

Page 1 of 6

[SRD]

Pune - 28

Mr. Santosh Maruti Sonawane Age: Adult, Occ: Business, R/at: Anandi Niwas, S. No. 13, Hissa No. 4B/1A/1B/1/1/2, Ajinkay Colony, Opp. Akashwani, Near Hotel Vaishali, Hadapsar, Pune – 411 028 3. Mr. Anup Maruti Sonawane, Age: Adult, Occ: Business, R/at: Anandi Niwas, S. No. 13, Hissa No. 4B/1A/1B/1/1/2, Ajinkay Colony, Opp. Akashwani, Near Hotel Vaishali, Hadapsar, … Defendants Pune – 411 028 APPEARANCES For the Applicant Mr. R B Ganbote - Advocate For Defendants None (Ex parte)

¶12

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.2,05,66,342/-

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

(Delivered on 26^th April, 2023)

¶15

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of Rs.2,05,66,342/- (Term Loan) together with future interest thereon @15.25% per annum with monthly rests from 19^th November, 2018 till repayment/realization of entire dues from the defendants.

(OA No.144/2022)

Page 2 of 6

[SRD]

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶20

The defendant No. 1 is principal borrower along with defendant Nos. 2 and 3 approached the applicant Bank seeking financial assistance for purpose of purchasing different machinery for manufacturing of hydraulic control valves and after due consideration, the applicant Bank on 28^th March, 2014 sanctioned and disbursed the Term Loan facility of Rs.2,10,00,000/- to defendant No. 1. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 stood as guarantors for the said Term Loan.

¶21

The defendants executed necessary loan transaction and security documents, hypothecation and also created equitable mortgage in respect of immovable property in favour of the applicant Bank as described in Paragraph Nos. 5.6 and 5.8 of the Original Application.

¶22

It is contended by the applicant Bank that Bank issued Notice on 4^th May, 2017 to the defendants calling upon them to pay the outstanding amount. Despite service of Notice, defendants failed and neglected to comply with the demand in the said Notice.

¶23

Hence, this application is filed.

¶24

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex parte against them vide

(OA No.144/2022)

Page 3 of 6

[SRD]

Order dated 25^th January, 2023 passed below the Application (Exhibit-01).

¶29

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. P. V. Gurunathan, Chief Manager which supports the case of the applicant elucidated in the application.

¶30

The applicant Bank has produced on record the original loan transaction and security documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1/1 to AW-1/13 which corroborate the case of the applicant Bank.

¶31

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

¶32

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.

¶33

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @15.25% per annum with monthly rests. 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.

¶34

The applicant Bank has claimed Penal Interest of Rs.68,863/which cannot be granted and the same is required to be

(OA No.144/2022)

Page 4 of 6

[SRD]

deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.2,05,66,342/- is reduced to Rs.2,04,97,479/-

¶39

Hence, I pass the following order: -

¶40

ORDER

¶41

(A) Original Application No.144/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶42

(B) Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.2,04,97,479/- (Rupees Two Crore Four Lakhs Ninety-Seven Thousand Four Hundred SeventyNine only) with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 19^th November, 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 the immovable property i.e. all that piece and parcel of property bearing Survey No. 13 Hissa No. 4B/1/A/1B/1//1/2 admeasuring 00 Hector 02 Aar along with construction thereon admeasuring 318.65 Sq. Mts. and all other amenities and facilities of the building thereon at Village Hadapsar, Taluka –

(OA No.144/2022)

Page 5 of 6

[SRD]

Haveli, within the limits of Pune Municipal Corporation and also within the limits of Registration District Pune, Sub Registration District Haveli, District – Pune favor of the applicant Bank as described in Paragraph No. 5.8 of the Original Application.

¶48

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

¶49

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶50

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

¶51

Sd/(Dilip G. Murumkar) Place: Pune Presiding Officer Date: 26.04.2023 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune

¶52

(OA No.144/2022)

¶53

Page 6 of 6

¶54

[SRD]

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus Atul Atakare

Samkit Shantilal Pomani versus State Bank of India

Bank of Maharashtra versus Bhausaheb Yadav