Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Dhiraj

DRT16 Dec 2023OA/164/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex parte original application for recovery of a housing term loan, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's claim for principal dues and adjusted future interest to simple 9% per annum, directing the execution of security and issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.80,22,319/- with future interest at 9% p.a.; direction to sell mortgaged property; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Union Bank of India versus Dhiraj — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

Presented on: 22.12.2021 Registered on: 09.03.2022 Decided on: 16.12.2023 Duration: Y M D 1 11 24

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.164/2022

¶3

Union Bank of India,

¶4

A Banking Company constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Central Office at Union Bank Bhavan, 239 Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Mumbai-400 021 and branch amongst other places at – Shopping Centre, Plot No.172/A, Lane No.19, Kumbhar Ves, Solapur, known as `Solapur Main Branch’, Solapur.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Shri Dhiraj Gokul Shinde, Adult, Occ: Business, Residing atD-6/7, Vidya Vihar, Railway Line, Solapur-413 216.

¶8

Shri Gokul Dattatraya Shinde, Adult, Occ: Business, Residing atD-6/7, Vidya Vihar, Railway Line, Solapur-413 216.

¶9

Alacrity Constructions Private

(OA No.164/2022)

Page 1 of 6

[ npb ]

Limited,

Notice to be served to:Mr. Samir Amrut Gandhi, Managing Director having its Office at-99, Central Plaza, Shinde Chowk, Solapur-413 007.

¶15

… Defendants

¶16

APPEARANCES

¶17

For the Applicant Mr. Ramesh B. Ganbote - Advocate For Defendants Ex parte TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.80,22,319/-

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

(Delivered on 16^th December, 2023)

¶20

The Applicant Bank has filed the present Application for recovery of sum of Rs.80,22,319/- in respect of Housing Term Loan account together with future interest @10.65% p.a. with monthly rests thereon from 01^st November, 2011 till full repayment/realization of entire dues from defendant No.1 and 2. The applicant Bank has not claimed any recovery from defendant No.3.

¶21

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶22

The defendant Nos.1 and 2 approached the applicant

¶23

Bank in October, 2016 and requested for Housing Term Loan of Rs.75,00,000/- for purchase of Flat from Defendant No.3. Defendant No.2 guaranteed for securing Housing Term Loan to be availed by defendant No.1 from the

(OA No.164/2022)

Page 2 of 6

[ npb ]

applicant Bank.

On 01^st March, 2017 the applicant sanctioned Housing Loan and disbursed the amount to defendant No.3 from whom the said Flat was purchased by defendant No.1.

¶29

Defendant Nos.1 and 2 signed and executed the loan transaction and security documents as mentioned in paragraph Nos.5.5 to 5.7 of the Original Application which includes the mortgaged property i.e. Flat No.102 more particularly mentioned in paragraph No.5.7 of the Original Application.

¶30

The Housing Term Loan was to be repaid by 240 EMIs of Rs.65,562/- each commencing from April, 2017.

¶31

The applicant Bank further contended that on 31^st March, 2019 the defendant No.1 has executed Debit Balance Confirmation Letter in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶32

The applicant Bank further contended that after availing the aforesaid Housing Term Loan, defendant No.1 was not paying the installments as agreed and committed breach of terms and conditions of the sanction. Therefore, the applicant Bank through its Advocate issued Recall Notice on 05^th April, 2021 and demanded the outstanding

(OA No.164/2022)

Page 3 of 6

[ npb ]

payment. Despite issuance of Recall Notice, defendant No.1 failed to pay the installments and also failed to regularize the loan account.

¶37

Hence, this application is filed.

¶38

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex parte against them vide Order dated 11^th December, 2023 below the Application (Exhibit-1).

¶39

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Shri Vineet Kumar Gayaprasad Singh, Chief Manager, which supports the case of the applicant Bank elucidated in the application.

¶40

The applicant Bank has produced on record the original loan transaction documents (Sr.Nos.AW-1/1 to AW-1/14 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.

(OA No.164/2022)

Page 4 of 6

[ npb ]

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @10.65% p.a. with monthly rests for Housing Term Loan account. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% p.a. (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶47

Hence, I pass the following order:-

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(A) Original Application No.164/2022 is allowed with costs against defendant Nos.1 and 2.

¶50

(B) Defendant Nos.1 and 2 shall either jointly or severally pay to the applicant Bank towards Housing Term Loan account the sum of Rs.80,22,319/- (Rupees Eighty Lakhs Twenty-Two Thousand Three Hundred and Nineteen only) with future interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 22^nd December, 2021 till full realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

(OA No.164/2022)

Page 5 of 6

[ npb ]

property i.e. Flat No.102, admeasuring 129.11 Sq. Mtrs. carpet area i.e. 155.73 Sq. Mtrs. built-up area on first floor of the building known as “The Land Mark”, constructed on sub Plot No.2 out of City Survey No.222 having corresponding Final Plot No.81 situated at Civil Lines Solapur, within in the limits of Solapur Municipal Corporation, TalukaNorth Solapur and also within the limits of Registration District Solapur, Sub Registration District North Solapur, District-Solapur, more particularly mentioned in paragraph No.5.7 of the Original Application.

¶56

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

¶57

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶58

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

¶59

Sd/- (Dilip G Murumkar) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 16.12.2023 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune

¶60

(OA No.164/2022)

¶61

Page 6 of 6

¶62

[ npb ]

Union Bank of India v. Dhiraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Dhiraj

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 Alex Jacob

Punjab National Bank versus Shantilal Zagade

State Bank of India versus Harsha Somnath Avhad

Union Bank of India versus Naim

Bank of Maharashtra versus Swati Gawade

Punjab National Bank versus Machindra Mhetre