Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Bhausaheb Yadav

DRT8 May 2023OA/335/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune allowed an application by Bank of Maharashtra against five defendants (three borrowers and two guarantors). The court awarded repayment of the principal sum and directed enforcement against mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly or severally ordered to pay Rs. 43,62,163/- with future interest @9% p.a. from 28.12.2021; direction to sell mortgaged properties to recover dues and issue Recovery Certificate.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Bhausaheb Yadav — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

Presented on: 28.12.2021 Registered on: 12.04.2022 Decided on: 08.05.2023 Duration: Y M D 1 4 10

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.335/2022

¶4

Bank of Maharashtra, A banking Company Incorporate under the Banking companies (Acquisition and transfer of undertakings) Act V, of 1970, having its Head Office at “Lokmangal”, 1501, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411 005 and one of its branch offices at Kadegaon, Tal. Kadegaon, District Sangali – 415 303

… Applicant

Versus

Mr. Bhausaheb Vishnu Yadav

¶9

Age – 58 years, Occupation – Farmer R/at: 677 Kadepur, Tal. Kadegaon, Dist. Sangali – 415 305

¶10

Mr. Tanaji Vishnu Yadav Age – 55 years, Occupation – Farmer R/at: Near Maruti Mandir, Kadepur, Tal. Kadegaon, Dist. Sangali – 415 305

¶11

Mr. Sambhaji Vishnu Yadav Age: 53 years, Occupation – Farmer R/at: 679 Gavthan, Near Maruti

(OA No.335/2022)

Page 1 of 7

[SRD]

Mandir, Kadepur, Tal. Kadegaon, Dist. Sangali – 415 305 4. Mr. Ganpatrao Dhondi Yadav Age: 73 years, Occupation – Farmer, R/at: Kadepur, Tal. Kadegaon, Dist. Sangali – 415 305 5. Mr. Somnath Kisan Yadav Age: 40 years, Occupation – Farmer, R/at: 55 Number, Vasahat, Behind S.T. Stand Vasahat, Kadepur, Tal. Kadegaon, Dist. Sangali – 415 305

¶16

APPEARANCES

¶17

… Defendants

¶18

For the Applicant Mr. Ashok Tamboli - Advocate For Defendants None (Ex parte)

¶19

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.43,62,163/-

¶20

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 8^th May, 2023)

¶21

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of sum of Rs.43,62,163/- (Agricultural Loan Account) together with future interest thereon @13% per annum with monthly rests, from 28^th December, 2021 till repayment/ realization of entire dues from the defendants.

¶22

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶23

The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 approached applicant Bank

(OA No.335/2022)

Page 2 of 7

[SRD]

seeking financial assistance for purpose of constriction of Farm House. After due consideration on 6^th July, 2015 the applicant Bank sanctioned Agricultural Term Loan of Rs.25,00,000/- to defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and defendant Nos. 4 and 5 stood as Guarantors to the said term loan account.

¶28

The defendant Nos. 1, 2 & 3 executed necessary loan transaction and security documents, Hypothecation and also created Mortgage in respect of immovable properties in favour of the applicant Bank as described in paragraph Nos. 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 of the Original Application.

¶29

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants were not adhered to repayment schedule and failed and neglected to pay the installment of Term Loan and interest thereon on their due dates as agreed and therefore the Term Loan account of the defendants was classified as Non-Performing Asset on 29^th July, 2018.

¶30

The applicant Bank contended that applicant Bank called upon the defendants to pay the outstanding amount together with interest and issued Recall Notice on 10^th August, 2018 and Legal Notice on 28^th November, 2018. Despite service of Notices, defendants failed and neglected to comply with the demand in the said Notice.

(OA No.335/2022)

Page 3 of 7

[SRD]

Hence, this application is filed.

¶35

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex parte against him vide Order dated 31^st January, 2023 passed below the Application (Exhibit-01).

¶36

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

¶37

The applicant Bank has produced on record the original loan transaction and security documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1/1 to AW-1/22 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 reliefs as claimed.

¶40

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @13% per annum for with monthly rests for Term Loan account. However, considering the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum

(OA No.335/2022)

Page 4 of 7

[SRD]

(simple), it would be just and reasonable.

¶45

Hence, I pass the following order: -

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(A) Original Application No. 335/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶48

(B) Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 either jointly or severally shall pay towards Term Loan account to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.43,62,163/- (Rupees Forty-Three Lakhs Sixty-Two Thousand One Hundred Sixty-Three only) with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 28^th December, 2021 till payment/ realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶49

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by valid and subsisting mortgage of immovable properties i.e. a. All those pieces and parcels of land situate being and lying at village Kadepur in the registration dist. Sangali Sub Dist. Kadegaon admeasuring 5.20 and bearing survey Nos. 709/6, 714, 650, 471, 651, 633, 474.

¶50

b. Property of Mr. Bhausaheb Vishnu Yadav, Mr. Tanaji Vishnu Yadav, Mr. Sambhaji Vishnu

(OA No.335/2022)

Page 5 of 7

[SRD]

Yadav – all those pieces and parcels of land situate being and laying Kadepur in the Registration Gat No. 709/6 Dist. Sangali Sub Dist. Kadegaon admeasuring 376.23 Sq. Mts.

¶55

c. Property of Mr. Bhausaheb Vishnu Yadav – all those pieces and parcels of land situate being and laying at Village Kadepur in the registration Dist. Sangali Sub Dist. Kadegaon

¶56

i. Gat No. 709/6 admeasuring 0 H 49.50 Ares ii. Gat No. 471 admeasuring H 39 Ares iii. Gat No. 651 admeasuring 0 H 81 Ares

¶57

iv. Gat No. 633 admeasuring 4 anne share out of 0 H 06 Ares

¶58

d. Property of Mr. Sambhaji Vishnu Yadav – all those pieces and parcels of land situate being and laying at Village Kadepur in the registration Dist. Sangaali Sub Dist. Kadegaon

¶59

i. Gat No. 709/6 admeasuring 0 H 49.50 Ares ii. Gat No. 650 admeasuring 0 H 41 Ares iii. Gat No. 714 admeasuring 0 H 0.78 Ares

¶60

e. Property of Mr. Tanaji Vishnu Yadav – all those pieces and parcels of land situate being and laying at Village Kadepur in the registration Dist.

(OA No.335/2022)

Page 6 of 7

[SRD]

Sangali sub Dist. Kadegaon

¶65

i. Gat No. 709/6 admeasuring 0 H 0 H 0.78 Ares

¶66

ii. Gat No. 474 admeasuring 1 H 51 Ares + Potkharaba 0 H 0.01 Ares

¶67

iii.Gat No. 714 admeasuring 0 H 0.78 Ares,

¶68

more particularly described in the paragraph Nos.5.4 and 5.5 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

Sd/(Dilip G. Murumkar) Place: Pune Presiding Officer Date: 08.05.2023 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune

¶73

(OA No.335/2022)

¶74

Page 7 of 7

¶75

[SRD]

Bank of Maharashtra v. Bhausaheb Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Bhausaheb Yadav

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

Samkit Shantilal Pomani versus State Bank of India

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sou. Seema Maruti Sonawane, Proprietress of Shree Ganesh Industries

Indian Overseas Bank versus Atul Atakare

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Akash Salunke

Bank of India versus Sanjaykumar Teli

Bank of India versus Sangeeta