Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Raygonda

DRT26 Jun 2023OA/227/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's recovery application against four borrowers and a guarantor for failing to repay a long-term agriculture loan of Rs. 1 crore. The court ordered payment of principal plus adjusted future interest and authorized enforcement against secured assets.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to pay Rs. 1,57,66,869 with 9% p.a. future interest and allowing sale of mortgaged/hypothecated properties for recovery.

Union Bank of India versus Raygonda — Money Laundering | DRT (2023)

¶1

Presented on: 28.01.2022 Registered on: 30.03.2022 Decided on: 26.06.2023 Duration: Y M D 1 4 29

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.227/2022

¶3

Union Bank of India, A Body Corporate constituted under the provisions of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Head Office at 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 and branch office at: Patil Bldg., Near Grampanchayat, Mhaisal, Taluka Miraj, Dist. Sangli, PIN-416 409.

¶4

… Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mr. Raygonda Baburao Patil,

¶7

Mrs. Sharmila Raygonda Patil,

¶8

Ms. Trupti Raygonda Patil,

¶9

Mr. Shivam Raygonda Patil, All Residing at: Patil Niwas, Gavardewadi, Vitthal Nagar, Bedag, Taluka Miraj, District Sangli-416 409.

… Defendants

(OA No.227/2022)

Page 1 of 7

[ npb ]

APPEARANCES

For the Applicant	Mr. VSSP Sarma - Advocate
For Defendants	Exparte

¶16

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.1,57,66,869/-

¶17

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 26^th June, 2023)

¶18

The Applicant Bank has filed the present Application for recovery of Rs.1,57,66,869/- together with future interest @10.10% p.a. with half yearly rests thereon in respect of Long Term Agriculture Loan from 28^th January, 2022 till full repayment/realization of entire dues from defendant Nos.1 to 4.

¶19

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶20

The defendant Nos.1 to 3 being Famers approached the applicant Bank on 06^th April, 2016 for sanction of Long Term Agriculture Loan for plantation of Grape Garden. Defendant No.4 stood as guarantor for the said loan.

¶21

The applicant Bank considered the request and sanctioned and disbursed the Long Term Agriculture Loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/on 25^th November, 2016 for establishment of Grape Garden along with minor irrigation and other development works. The said loan was to carry

(OA No.227/2022)

Page 2 of 7

[ npb ]

interest @12.20% p.a. with half yearly rests plus 2%penal interest to be repaid in 8 equal yearly installments commencing from September, 2019.

¶26

Defendant Nos.1 to 4 executed loan transaction and security documents as set out in paragraph Nos.5.3 and 5.4 of the Original Application, including Hypothecation Agreement dated 25^th November, 2016 and also created charge on their agricultural land of 9-81 Hectare in Gat Nos.227(P) and 228 (P) at Village Narwad, Taluka Miraj, District Sangli, towards security for repayment of said loan.

¶27

The applicant Bank contended that defendant Nos.1 to 3 have executed Composite Debit Balance Confirmation Letter on 02^nd April, 2018.

¶28

The applicant Bank further contended that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, defendant Nos.1 to 3 failed to repay the installments with interest. Therefore, the applicant Bank classified the account of defendant Nos.1 to 3 as Non-Performing Asset on 01^st August, 2021 as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India.

¶29

Thereafter, on 26^th October, 2021 the applicant Bank through its Advocate issued Demand Notice calling upon

(OA No.227/2022)

Page 3 of 7

[ npb ]

them to repay the dues. Despite issuance of Demand Notice, defendants failed to repay the dues.

¶34

Hence, this application is filed.

¶35

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex parte against them vide Order dated 09^th February, 2023 below the Application (Exhibit-1).

¶36

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Shri Suryaji Balvant Sankpal, Senior Manager, which supports the case of the applicant Bank elucidated in the application.

¶37

The applicant Bank has produced on record the original loan transaction documents (Sr.Nos.AW-1/1 to AW-1/17) 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

(OA No.227/2022)

Page 4 of 7

[ npb ]

reliefs as claimed.

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @10.10% p.a. with half yearly rests for Long Term Agriculture loan account. However, considering 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.

¶45

Hence, I pass the following order:-

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(A) Original Application No.227/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶48

(B) Defendant Nos.1 to 4 shall either jointly or severally pay to the applicant Bank towards Long Term Agriculture Loan account the sum of Rs.1,57,66,869/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty-Seven Lakhs Sixty-Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty-Nine only) with future interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 28^th January, 2022 till full realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

(OA No.227/2022)

Page 5 of 7

[ npb ]

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting hypothecation of movable property i.e. Tools/ equipment/ fixtures/ boats/ machines, tractor/ power tiller/tube well/electric motors/diesel engine and other movables connected with and relating to farming/rearing of cattle and/or more

¶53

float/fishing/sericulture, particularly mentioned in The Fourth Schedule of Hypothecation Agreement dated 25.11.2016.

¶54

(D) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage of immovable properties i.e. All that pieces or parcel of agricultural land in Gat No.227 (P) admeasuring 2.30 Hectare and Gat No.228 (P) admeasuring 3.76 & 3.75 Hectare at Village Narwad, Taluka Miraj, District Sangli, more particularly mentioned in The Second Schedule of Hypothecation Agreement dated 25.11.2016 and paragraph No.5.4 of Original Application.

¶55

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

(OA No.227/2022)

Page 6 of 7

[ npb ]

(F) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶60

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

¶61

Sd/- (Dilip G Murumkar) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 26.06.2023 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune

¶62

(OA No.227/2022)

¶63

Page 7 of 7

¶64

[ npb ]

Union Bank of India v. Raygonda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Raygonda

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus Abhijeet

Indian Overseas Bank versus Sanjay Tambile

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Deokar Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus Raygonda Baburao Patil

Punjab National Bank versus Shree Sony Elevators Prop Mr. Dinesh Yashwant Desale

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sudhir Chunekar