Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Ar Landmark LLP

DRT1 Aug 2023OA/195/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application by State Bank of India for recovery of dues aggregating Rs.9.43 crores against a Limited Liability Partnership and its guarantors. The court fixed future interest at 9% per annum, rejected hypothecation claims for lack of description, and directed the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Dues of Rs.9,43,33,227 with future interest at 9% per annum from filing date, secured by mortgage; Recovery Certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Ar Landmark LLP — Specific Performance | DRT (2023)

¶1

Presented on: 01.01.2022 Registered on: 21.03.2022 Decided on: 01.08.2023 Duration: Y M D 1 7 -

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.195/2022

¶4

State Bank of India

¶5

A banking company constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and having its Corporate Office at State Bank Bhavan, Nariman Point, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai – 400 021 and its branch at State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Office No. 101 & 102, First Floor, Next Gen Avenue, Bahiratwadi, Behind CC Trade Tower, Off. Senapati Bapat Road, Pune – 411 016, thereafter account migrated to State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Second Floor, “Wardhaman” Seven Loves Chowk, Plot No. 321/A/3, Mahatma Phule Peth, Pune – 411 042.

… Applicant

(OA No.195/2022)

Page 1 of 8

[SRD]

Versus

M/s. AR Landmark LLP A Partnership Firm Sr. No. 48/4, Ganesh Nagar, Shantiban, Opp. Krean Radar Co. Wadgaonsheri, Pune – 411 014 Also at, Site Office: Vetro Apartments Sr. No. 40/4, Balaji Udyam Nagar, Wadgaonsheri, Near Anjali School, Pune – 411 014

¶12

Mr. Akshay Uttam Raskar Sr. No. 48/4, Ganesh Nagar, Shantiban, Opp. Krean Radar Co. Wadgaonsheri, Pune – 411 014

¶13

Mr. Pratik Ravindra Chordia B-1, Flat No. 4, Punyanagari, Next to Shanti Ashram, Wadgaonsheri, Pune – 411 014

¶14

Mr. Ramkhrushna Dnyanoba Mali (Alis Ramkrishna Dnyanoba Mali) Chandkhed Pachane Road, Near New English School, chandkhed, Pune Maharashtra – 410 506

¶15

Dattatray Dnyanoba Mali Chandkhed Pachane Road, Near New English School, chandkhed, Pune Maharashtra – 410 506

… Defendants

(OA No.195/2022)

Page 2 of 8

[SRD]

APPEARANCES

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

¶22

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.9,44,79,291/-

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

(Delivered on 1^st August, 2023)

¶25

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of aggregate sum of Rs.9,44,79,291/i.e. Rs.8,94,04,097/- (Cash Credit Loan) together with future interest thereon @12.50% per annum with monthly rests from 28^th December,2021and Rs.50,75,194/- (Funded Interest Term Loan); together with future interest thereon @11.90% per annum with monthly rests from 28^th December, 2021 till repayment/ realization of entire dues from the defendants.

¶26

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶27

Defendant No. 1 being a Limited Liability Partnership Firm registered under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 under the name and style M/s. AR Landmark LLP, carrying on business of land development, construction and sales of real estate including residential real estate along with defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are designed partners. Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 stood as personal Guarantors also referred as

(OA No.195/2022)

Page 3 of 8

[SRD]

Third Party Guarantors.

¶32

Defendant No. 1 through defendant Nos. 2 and 3 approached the applicant Bank seeking financial assistance for its business purpose. The applicant Bank after due consideration sanctioned and disbursed the Cash Credit of Rs.9,99,00,000/- to the defendant No. 1 on 6^th December, 2018.

¶33

The defendants executed necessary loan transaction and security documents including Hypothecation and Deed of Mortgage in favour of the applicant Bank as set out in paragraph Nos.5.7, 5.8 and 5.11 of the Original Application.

¶34

The defendant No. 1 failed to pay interest during the moratorium period, so the defendant requested the applicant Bank to reconstruct the said interest and the applicant Bank accepted the said request. The applicant Bank converted the interest into Funded Interest Term Loan under General Guarantee scheme on 27^th August, 2020.

¶35

The applicant Bank contended that defendants were irregular in repayment of principal and interest as per terms of sanction. The applicant Bank called upon the defendants number of times to make repayment of amount due in the loan accounts also sent number of reminders but of no avail. In spite of all the reminders by the applicant Bank defendants

(OA No.195/2022)

Page 4 of 8

[SRD]

failed to regularize the loan accounts. Hence, the loan accounts were classified as Non-Performing Assets on 15^th June, 2021.

¶40

Further, the applicant Bank issued Legal Notice to defendants on 1^st September, 2021 for payment of the loan amount. Despite service of Notice, defendants failed to comply with the same.

¶41

Hence, this application is filed.

¶42

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex parte against them vide order dated 2^nd February, 2023 below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶43

The applicant has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Padmaja C. Pol, Chief Manager which supports the case of the applicant Bank elucidated in the application.

¶44

The applicant Bank has also produced list of documents (Exhibit-7) thereby adducing in evidence the original/copy of loan transaction and security documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1/1 to AW-1/25 which corroborate the case of the applicant.

¶45

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

¶46

Since the defendants failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of the

(OA No.195/2022)

Page 5 of 8

[SRD]

applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for reliefs as claimed.

¶51

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.

¶52

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @12.50% per annum for with monthly rests for Cash Credit accounts and @11.90% per annum with monthly rests for Funded Interest Term Loan account respectively. However, taking into consideration 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.

¶53

The applicant Bank has claimed Penal Interest of Rs.1,46,064/which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.9,44,79,291/- is reduced to Rs.9,43,33,227/-.

(OA No.195/2022)

Page 6 of 8

[SRD]

11. Hence, I pass the following order: -

¶58

ORDER

¶59

(A) Original Application No.195/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶60

(B) Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank towards Cash Credit account and Funded Interest Term loan account the aggregate sum of Rs.9,43,33,227/- (Rupees Nine Crores Forty-Three Lakhs Thirty-Three Thousand Two Hundred Twenty-Seven only) with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 1^st January, 2021 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶61

¶62

all that piece and parcel of property bearing Survey No. 40/4/4/28/34 admeasuring 897 Sq. Mts. i.e. 9655.23 Sq. Ft. of village Vadgaon Sheri, Taluka Haveli, Dist. Pune within the limits of Pune Municipal Corporation and

(OA No.195/2022)

Page 7 of 8

[SRD]

within the jurisdiction of Sub Registrar of District Pune, Taluka Haveli.

¶67

All that piece and parcel of Residential plot on land bearing Gat No. 250, 253 land admeasuring 4430 Sq. Mts. and construction area of 402.638 Sq. Mts. at Village Chandkhed, off Mhalunge Talegaon Road, Taluka Maval, Dist. Pune.

¶68

more particularly described in paragraph No.5.11 of the Original Application.

¶69

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

¶70

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶71

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

¶72

Place: Pune Date: 01.08.2023

¶73

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

¶74

(OA No.195/2022)

¶75

Page 8 of 8

¶76

[SRD]

State Bank of India v. M/S. Ar Landmark LLP

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Ar Landmark LLP

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

Pandurang Ramchandra Kale versus Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank

State Bank of India versus Ketan Vinod Kadam

Mr Suhas Abhimanyu Shinde versus the Muslim Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Nana Kare

Indian Overseas Bank versus Indrajeet Salunke

Encore Assets Reconstruction Company Private Limited versus M/S. Dilip Gyanaba Zol, Prop. Dilip Gynaba Zol