Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sunil

DRT13 Dec 2023OA/5/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Union Bank of India against husband and wife borrowers for recovery of Rs. 25,44,344/- towards unpaid home loan dues and mortgaged properties. The court held the defendants jointly and severally liable.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 25,44,344/- with future interest at 8% p.a.; entitlement to proceed against mortgaged/hypothecated properties; issue of recovery certificate.

Union Bank of India versus Sunil — Company and Corporate | DRT (2023)

¶1

Presented on: 22/07/2021 Registered on: 06/01/2022 Decided on: 13/12/2023 Duration: Y M Ds 2 – 4 - 21

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL At Aurangabad.

¶3

Original Application No. 5 of 2022

¶4

Union Bank of India,

¶5

a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act v, 1970, having its Local Head Office at 239, Backbay Reclamation, Bombay, 400 021 and one of its Branch at Jalna Taluka and Dist. Jalna and acting through its Power of Attorney Holder and one of its Chief Manager Shri Rohit Kumar Padhan, age 40 years occupation service as Chief Manager, U.B.I., Jalna Branch, Jalna and having authority to file the appln. which includes the authority to sign & verify the application.

¶6

….Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Mr Sunil Kashinathrao Sasnik, age 44 years occupation builder, R/o Plot No. 119, near Pachambadevi MHADA Colony, Ambad Road, old Jalna, Jalna – 431 203 AND

¶9

Mr Sunil Kashinathrao Sasnik, age 44 years occupation builder, Row House No. 10, Saraswati Residency, on plot No. 158, Gat No. 187 (P), villae Kharpudi Taluka and District Jalna

¶10

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 5/2022) Page 1 of 6

¶11

Mrs Kalpana Sunil Sasnik,

¶12

age 34 years occupation house wife R/o Plot No. 119, near Pachambadevi MHADA Colony, Ambad Road, old Jalna, Jalna – 431 203 A N D Mrs Kalpana Sunil Sasnik, age 34 years occupation house wife Row House No. 10, Saraswati Residency, on plot No. 158, Gat No. 187 (P), villae Kharpudi Taluka and District Jalna

¶13

… Defendants

¶14

APPEARANCES :

¶15

For Applicant : Mr. V.B. Kulkarni - Advocate For Defendants Ex parte Shri Vimal Gupta, Presiding Officer . Pronounced on : 13^th December 2023

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The applicant-bank filed the present original application against defendants No.1 & 2 for recovery of sum of Rs. 25,44,344/- (Rs. twenty five lakhs forty four thousand three hundred forty four only) towards outstanding of home loan amount availed by them, with future interest @10.00% p.a., with

¶18

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 5/2022) Page 2 of 6

¶19

monthly rests, from 18/07/2021 till the date of realization and, in default, for sale of the mortgaged and hypothecated properties, as described in the orig. application. It is pleaded that the home loan of Rs. 11,70,000/- was sanctioned to defendants on 08/12/2017 on execution of relevant documents by both of them and both of them agreed to repay it by 348 monthly equated installments @ Rs. 8901/- with interest thereon @ 10% p.a. with monthly rests. Thereafter they again obtained additional term loan amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 23/01/2018 on execution of relevant documents in favour of applicant which they agreed to repay it with interest @ 9.3% p.a. with monthly rests by 348 equated monthly installments of Rs 8316/-. However, both the defendants failed to repay both the loan amounts and thereby it converted into NPA on 31/08/2019 and applicant compelled to issue demand notice on 08/06/2021. It is pleaded that in the meantime, both the defendants have executed letter of balance confirmation on 31/08/2019.

¶20

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 5/2022) Page 3 of 6

¶21

Defendants No.1 & 2 are husband and wife interse.

¶22

Defendant No.2 accepted the summons for herself and for her husband/Deft.No.1, vide R.P.A.D. receipts Exh. 7 & 8. Deft. No.2 also accepted the summons for herself and on behalf of her husband/Deft.No.1 by hand delivery, vide service affidavit Exh.11. However, both of them failed to appear in the matter and, therefore, the application proceeded ex parte against them, vide order dated 15/04/2023.

¶23

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶24

The point that arises for consideration is, whether the applicant-bank is entitled for the claim made in the orig. application against the defendants, as prayed for ?

¶25

The applicant-bank filed evidence on affidavit (Exh.4) along with list of documents (Exh.5) annexing therewith 20 documents, which are marked as Exh.A.W.1 to A.W. 20 on behalf of applicant, which clinches the claim of the applicant-bank against both the defendants. Moreover, in view of the fact that the

¶26

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 5/2022) Page 4 of 6

¶27

averments in the original application have gone unrebutted, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the applicant-bank is entitled for the prayers made therein. Further more, perusal of the documents on record shows that the application is filed within limitation. Hence I hold that both the defendants are liable to pay to applicant-bank the claim amount claimed in the orig. application with future reasonable interest considering meantime CovidPandeic-19 long period and costs.

¶28

In the result, the present orig. application No. 5 of 2022 is allowed with costs, as under:

¶29

(A) Defendants No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay sum of Rs. 25,44,344/- (Rs. twenty five lakhs forty four thousand three hundred forty four only) with future interest @ 8 (eight) % p.a., simple, from 18/07/2021 till the date of realization.

¶30

(B) The applicant-bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged and hypothecated properties, as described in the orig. application towards realization of their dues;

¶31

¶32

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 5/2022) Page 5 of 6

¶33

person and properties of both the defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶34

(D) The applicant bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶35

(E) The applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶36

(F) Issue recovery certificate.

¶37

(G) Communicate copy of the order to the parties concerned Order be uploaded on the official website.

¶38

(Vimal Gupta) PRESIDING OFFICER, Aurangabad, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, Date:13/12/2023 A urangabad

¶39

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 5/2022) Page 6 of 6

Union Bank of India v. Sunil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sunil

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

Mrs Jyoti Dagdusaheb Shinde versus Osmanabad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd.

Lohiya Developers versus Osmanabad Janta Sahakari Bank Limied

M s Shrikrushna Agency Prop Chandu Ramdas Kulkarni versus Union Bank of India

Canara Bank versus Mangalabai Santosh Chaudhar

State Bank of India versus Salasar Alloys Industries and Another

Bank of Baroda versus Tausif Agency