Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Microprop Biotech Pvt. Limited

DRT24 May 2023OA/194/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT allowed the bank's application under DR-T Act for recovery of outstanding term loan and cash credit dues aggregating to nearly 5 crores. The court adjusted the claim by deducting penal interest, reduced future interest rate to 9%, and directed realization from mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs.4,99,28,587/- with 9% interest; issuance of recovery certificate; permission to sell mortgaged properties.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Microprop Biotech Pvt. Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

Presented on: 10.02.2022 Registered on: 21.03.2022 Decided on: 24.05.2023 Duration: Y M D 1 3 14

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.194/2022

¶4

Bank of Maharashtra,

¶5

A banking Company constituted under the Banking companies Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking Act 1970, having its Head Office at “Lokmangal”, 1501, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411 005, Maharashtra, India and its branch i.e. Bank of Maharashtra 628/629, Sachapir Street, Camp Branch, Pune – 411 001

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Microprop Biotech Pvt. Limited F. No. 2, Pushpak Society, F.C. Road, Pune – 411 004 Also, at G. No. 117, Dalimb Road, Urulikanchan, Taluka Haveli Pune – 412 202

¶9

Mr. Sushil Shankarrao Kadam F. No. 2, Pushpak Society, F.C. Road, Pune – 411 004

(OA No.194/2022)

Page 1 of 7

[SRD]

Also, at Flat No. 4, 1194/5, Sahavihar Housing Society, Ghole Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411 005 3. Mr. Pramod Subhash Bhingare 401, Minerva Apartment, Bhosale Nagar, Pune – 411 007 Also, at Bhau Patil Padal 38, Aundh Road, Near Siddharath Sangh Buddha … Defendants Vihar, Khadki, Pune – 411 020

¶14

APPEARANCES

¶15

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

¶16

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.4,99,56,973/-

¶17

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 24^th May, 2023)

¶18

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of aggregate sum of Rs.4,99,56,973/i.e. Rs.4,78,29,583/- (Term Loan Account) together with future interest thereon @9.50% per annum with monthly rests and Rs.21,27,390/- (Cash Credit Account) together with future interest thereon @9.70% per annum with monthly rests from

(OA No.194/2022)

Page 2 of 7

[SRD]

10^th February, 2022 till repayment/realization of entire dues from the defendants.

¶23

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶24

The defendant No. 1 is a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 2013 under the name and style Microprop Biotech Pvt. Limited and in engaged in the business of Tissue Culture Plant Manufacturing. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the Directors of the defendant No. 1.

¶25

Defendant No. 1 through its directors i.e. defendant Nos. 2 and 3 approached applicant Bank seeking financial assistance for purpose of setting up a Plant Manufacturing Project for Tissue Culture. After due consideration the applicant Bank sanctioned aggregate loan of Rs.4,95,00,000/consisting two facilities i.e. Term Loan for an amount of Rs.4,75,00,000/- and Cash Credit for an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- on 30^th July, 2020 to defendant No. 1 and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 stood as Guarantors to the said loan facilities availed by defendant No. 1.

¶26

The defendants executed necessary loan transactions and security documents, Hypothecation and also created Simple Mortgage in respect of immovable properties in favour of the

(OA No.194/2022)

Page 3 of 7

[SRD]

applicant Bank as described in paragraph No. 5.7 of the Original Application.

¶31

The applicant Bank contended that the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were not maintaining both the loan accounts as per terms of sanction and the accounts were running irregular. Even after number of reminders the defendants failed to regularize its accounts and therefore, the accounts of the defendants were classified as Non-Performing Asset on 15^th August, 2021. The applicant Bank contended that applicant Bank called upon the defendants to pay the outstanding amount together with interest and issued Recall Notice on 19^th January, 2022. Despite service of Notice, defendants failed and neglected to comply with the demand in the said Notice. Hence, this application is filed.

¶32

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex parte against him vide Order dated 2^nd February, 2023 passed below the Application (Exhibit-01).

¶33

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Manish Edlabadkar, Assistant General Manager which supports the case of the applicant elucidated in the application.

(OA No.194/2022)

Page 4 of 7

[SRD]

The applicant Bank has produced on record the original loan transaction and security documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1/1 to AW-1/25 which corroborate the case of the applicant Bank.

¶38

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

¶39

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.

¶40

The applicant Bank has claimed relief in respect of hypothecated assets. However, there is no detailed description with respect to the hypothecated assets. Therefore, the relief in terms of hypothecated assets cannot be granted.

¶41

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @9.50% per annum for with monthly rests for Term Loan account and @9.70% per annum for Cash Credit account respectively. However, considering the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple) for both the loan accounts, it would be just and reasonable.

¶42

The applicant Bank has claimed Penal Interest of Rs.28,386/-

(OA No.194/2022)

Page 5 of 7

[SRD]

which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.4,99,56,973/- is reduced to Rs.4,99,28,587/-.

¶47

Hence, I pass the following order: -

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(A) Original Application No. 194/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶50

(B) Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay towards Term Loan and Cash Credit account respectively to the applicant Bank the aggregate sum of Rs.4,99,28,587/- (Rupees Four Crores Ninety-Nine Lakhs Twenty-Eight Thousand Five Hundred EightySeven only) with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 10^th February, 2022 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶51

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by valid and subsisting mortgage of immovable properties i.e. all those piece and parcel of land bearing Plot Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 Situated at CTS/Survey Nos. 51/B+52 (Part) Gat being admeasuring total 5981.84 Sq. Mts. i.e.

¶52

Plot No. 1 admeasuring 460.19 Sq. Mts.

(OA No.194/2022)

Page 6 of 7

[SRD]

Plot No. 2 admeasuring 452.18 Sq. Mts.

¶57

Plot No. 3 admeasuring 454.10 Sq. Mts. 4. Plot No. 4 admeasuring 452.40 Sq. Mts. 5. Plot No. 5 admeasuring 456.75 Sq. Mts.

¶58

Plot No. 6 admeasuring 1791.56 Sq. Mts.

¶59

Plot No. 10 admeasuring 1930.62 Sq. Mts.

¶60

more particularly described in the paragraph No. 5.8 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

Sd/(Dilip G. Murumkar) Place: Pune Presiding Officer Date: 24.05.2023 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune

¶65

(OA No.194/2022)

¶66

Page 7 of 7

¶67

[SRD]

Bank of Maharashtra v. Microprop Biotech Pvt. Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Microprop Biotech Pvt. Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Vitthal Ingole

Bank of India versus Fnv Agro Producer Company Limited

Canara Bank versus Navnath Tarachand Nakhawa

Punjab National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus Santosh Devendra Jamadar

Canara Bank versus Jadhav Dairy Farm

Mangal Nagnath Parkale versus Bank of Maharashtra