Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. Sanjay Tambile

DRT21 Jun 2023OA/31/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an ex parte application filed by Indian Overseas Bank for recovery of agricultural term and KCC loans aggregating Rs.47,24,622.90. The bank claimed future interest adjusted to 9% per annum and directed realization through secured mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs.47,24,622.90 with 9% future interest; mortgage properties to be realized; recovery certificate issued.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Sanjay Tambile — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

Presented on: 10.09.2021 Registered on: 08.12.2021 Decided on: 21.06.2023 Duration: Y M D 01 09 11

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.31/2022

¶4

Indian Overseas Bank A body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 and having its Head office at 762, Anna Salai, Chennai, 600 002, Tamil Nadu State and its branch at Indian Overseas Bank, Mahatma Phule Road, Indapur, Maharashtra 413 106.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Sanjay Maruti Tambile At Hingangaon, Taluka- Indapur, District – Pune – 413 106

¶8

Mr. Chhagan Murlidhar Tambile At Hingangaon, Taluka- Indapur, District – Pune – 413 106

¶9

Mr. Balkrishna Chhagan Tambile At Hingangaon, Taluka- Indapur, District – Pune – 413 106

… Defendants

(OA No.31/2022)

Page 1 of 7

[SRD]

APPEARANCES

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

¶16

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.47,24,622.90Ps.

¶17

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 21^st June, 2023)

¶18

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of aggregate sum Rs.47,24,622.90Ps i.e. Rs.42,86,282.50Ps. (Agri Term Loan) together with future interest thereon @12.75% per annum with half yearly rests plus Penal Interest @2% per annum from 5^th September, 2021 and Rs.4,38,340.40Ps. (KCC Loan) together with future interest thereon @11.50% per annum with yearly rests plus Penal Interest @2% from 1^st September, 2021 till repayment/realization of entire dues from the defendants. 2. Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶19

The defendant No. 1 as principle borrower through defendant Nos. 2 and 3 approached the applicant Bank seeking financial assistance for land development, pipeline and cultivation of Sugarcane and after due consideration, the applicant Bank on 13^th November, 2013 sanctioned and

(OA No.31/2022)

Page 2 of 7

[SRD]

disbursed Agri Credit Facilities for an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- consisting of two Facilities i.e. Agriculture Term Loan under IOB Green Credit Scheme for an amount of Rs.17,00,000/- and Agri Kisan Credit Card (KCC) for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- respectively. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 stood as Guarantors to the Agri Credit Facilities sanctioned to defendant No.1.

¶24

The defendants executed necessary loan transaction and security documents, Hypothecation and also created Registered Mortgage in respect of the immovable properties in favour of the applicant Bank as set out in paragraph Nos. 5.7, 5.8 and 5.10 of the Original Application.

¶25

The applicant Bank contended that standard status the loan accounts of the defendants could not sustain for long and became irregular due to non-repayment of Principal and Interest as per terms of sanction. The officers of the applicant Bank personally called up and also sent number of reminders for payment but of no avail. In spite of all the reminders, until date defendants neither made any efforts to approach the applicant Bank not paid any amount due and payable to regularize the loan accounts. Therefore, the applicant Bank classified the loan Accounts as Non-

(OA No.31/2022)

Page 3 of 7

[SRD]

Performing Asset on 31^st January, 2018.

¶30

Defendants executed Revival Letters on 24^th August, 2016 and 4^th June, 2019 thereby admitted their liability.

¶31

Thereafter, on 16^th June, 2021 the applicant Bank issued Legal Notice to the defendants calling upon them to pay the outstanding loan amount. Despite service of Notice, defendants failed and neglected to comply with the demand in the said Notice.

¶32

Hence, this application is filed.

¶33

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex parte against them vide Order dated 4^th January, 2023 passed below the Application (Exhibit-01).

¶34

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Pawan Kishore, Branch Manager which supports the case of the applicant Bank elucidated in the application.

¶35

The applicant Bank has produced on record the Original /True Copy loan transaction and security documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1/1 to AW-1/20 which corroborate the case of the applicant Bank.

¶36

I have heard arguments of the learned Advocate for the

(OA No.31/2022)

Page 4 of 7

[SRD]

applicant Bank.

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.

¶42

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @12.75% per annum with half yearly rests for Agri Term Loan Account and @11.50% per annum with yearly rests for KCC account plus Penal Interest @2% per annum respectively. However, considering the facts of the present case, if the future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple) for both the accounts, it would be just and reasonable.

¶43

Hence, I pass the following order: -

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(A) Original Application No. 31/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶46

(B) Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank towards Agri Term Loan account and KCC account respectively, the aggregate sum of Rs.47,24,623/- (Rupees FortySeven Lakhs Twenty-Four Thousand Six Hundred Twenty-Three only) with future interest @9% per

(OA No.31/2022)

Page 5 of 7

[SRD]

annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 10^th September, 2021 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 that piece and parcel of Agricultural Land in,

¶52

Gat No. 183/1 admeasuring area about 1 H 90R + PK 0H 21R totally admeasuring about 02H 11R

¶53

Gat No. 184/1 admeasuring area about 3 H 15 R +PK 0H 31R admeasuring about 03 H 46 R. Out of the said area admeasuring 1H 05R + 0H 10R totally 1H 15R belonging to Mr. Sanjay Maruti Tambile

¶54

Gat No. 190 admeasuring area about 2 H 39 R Out of the said area admeasuring 0 H 41 R belonging to Mr. Sanjay Maruti Tambile

¶55

Situated at village Hingangaon, Taluka Indapur, District Pune within the jurisdiction of Division Pune, Sub-Division and Taluka and within the Sub

(OA No.31/2022)

Page 6 of 7

[SRD]

limits of Sub-Registrar Indapur, District – Pune. Together with all trees, crop (existing and future) standing on the land and superstructure, fixtures and fittings including buildings, machinery, pipeline etc., presently installed and/or that may install thereon, more particularly mentioned in paragraph No. 5.10 of the Original Application.

¶60

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

¶61

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶62

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

¶63

Sd/(Dilip G. Murumkar) Place: Pune Presiding Officer Date: 21.06.2023 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune

¶64

(OA No.31/2022)

¶65

Page 7 of 7

¶66

[SRD]

Indian Overseas Bank v. Sanjay Tambile

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. Sanjay Tambile

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Deokar Enterprises

Canara Bank versus M/S. Gurudatta Fly Ash Brics Prop Mr. Pradip Sahebrao Khandav

Mangal Nagnath Parkale versus Bank of Maharashtra

Bank of Maharashtra versus Abhijeet

Union Bank of India versus Raygonda

Union Bank of India versus Raygonda Baburao Patil