Allowed

Yes Bank v. Sarvadny Enterprises, Prop. Sanjay Bajirao Bhosale

DRT8 Sept 2023OA/270/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an ex-parte appeal for recovery of a loan sum of Rs. 24.18 Lakhs with interest. The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application, reducing the amount by attachment charges and converting future interest from 10% to 9%, and granted a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Direct payment to the applicant of Rs. 23.12 Lakhs with future interest @ 9% p.a. from 01.03.2022 till realization. Recovery process secured by hypothecated vehicle and issue of recovery certificate.

Yes Bank versus Sarvadny Enterprises, Prop. Sanjay… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2023)

¶1

Presented on : 01.03.2022 Registered on : 29.03.2022 Decided on : 08.09.2023 Duration : Y M D 01 06 07

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 270/2022.

¶3

Yes Bank Limited,

¶4

A Banking Company within the meaning of Section 5C of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and constituted under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office at 9^th Floor, Discovery of India, Nehru Centre, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai - 400018 and branch office at Erandawana, Pune 410004.

¶5

.. Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 Sarvadny Enterprises, Prop. Sanjay Bajirao Bhosale, Uruli Kanchan Ashram Road, Taluka Haveli, District Pune-412202.

¶8

2 Suvarna Sanjay Bhosale, Sarvadnya Niwas, Uruli Kanchan Ashram Road, Taluka Haveli, District Pune-412202.

¶9

.. Defendants

¶10

APPEARANCES

¶11

For Applicant	Mr. Pradip	Yadav - Advocate
For Defendants	Exparte.

(OA No. 270/2022)

Page 1 of 5

Sanap

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.24,18,596=18

¶16

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 08^th September, 2023)

¶17

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.24,18,596=18 together with future interest @10% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶18

Brief facts of the application are as under :

¶19

Defendant No.1 is proprietorship concern. Defendant No.1 is borrower and defendant No.2 is co-borrower and as per their loan application, applicant Bank sanctioned a Construction Equipment Loan of Rs.31,01,374/- on 03.04.2019. In order to secure the aforesaid loan, the defendants executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank along with deed of hypothecation of Tata LPT2523 bearing Registration No. MH-12-RN-1827 in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶20

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Therefore, on 01.07.2021, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendants. Despite service of Notice, the defendants failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of

(OA No. 270/2022)

Page 2 of 5

Sanap

the applicant Bank.

Hence, this application is filed.

¶26

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 03.02.2023 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶27

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Aadesh Shintre, Authorized Representative of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1 to AW-6 along with list (Exhibit 9), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

The applicant Bank has claimed Cheque Bounce Charges of Rs.11,564/- and other charges of Rs.94,856=56, which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of

(OA No. 270/2022)

Page 3 of 5

Sanap

Rs.24,18,596=18 is reduced to Rs.23,12,176/-.

¶35

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @10% per annum with monthly rests. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶36

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(A) Original Application No.270/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶39

(B) Defendant Nos.1 and 2, jointly and severally, shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.23,12,176/(Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Twelve Thousand One Hundred Seventy Six only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 01.03.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶40

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting hypothecation of the movable property i.e. Tata LPT2523 bearing RTO Registration

(OA No. 270/2022)

Page 4 of 5

Sanap

No. MH-12-RN-1827, more particularly described in Para 5.3 of the Original Application.

¶45