Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Sonu Construction

DRT15 Dec 2023OA/34/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs. 48.53 lakh outstanding against M/s. Sonu Construction and guarantors. The court held the loan documents were proven and the application was within time, dismissing defenses of exorbitant interest and blank signatures.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 48,53,176 with future interest @ 8% p.a. from 04/10/2022; application allowed with costs.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Sonu Construction — Consumer Protection | DRT (2023)

¶1

Presented on: 13/10/2022 Registered on: 20/03/2023 Decided on: 15/12/2023 Duration: Y M Ds 1 – 2 - 2

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL at Aurangabad.

¶3

Original Application No. 34 of 2023

¶4

Bank of Baroda,

¶5

a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act v, 1970 having its Local Head Office at Mandvi, Baroda and one of its Branch at Stressed Assets Recovery Branch and acting through its Power of Attorney Holder and one of Chief Manager, Mr Vishal Raj Gupta, age 32 years occupation service as Chief Manager, bank of Baroda, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Plot No. 8, Town Centre, Connaught Place N-5, CIDCO, Aurangabad 431003 and having authority to file the application which includes the authority to sign and verify the application. [email protected]

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

….Applicant

¶8

M/s. Sonu Construction, Proprietor Mr Goraksha Dadasaheb Nalkar, age 53 years occupation business at Satral post Songaon Taluka Rahuri Dist. Ahmednagar – 413711

¶9

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 34/2023) Page 1 of 8

¶10

AND

¶11

Mr Goraksha Dadasaheb Nalkar Proprietor Mr Goraksha Dadasaheb Nalkar, age 53 years occupation business Irrigation Bangala Road, Satral, post Songaon Taluka Rahuri Dist. Ahmednagar – 413711 PAN No. ABXPN5797K Aadhaar No. 5292 6371 0014 Mob. No. 96047 99278

¶12

Mrs Rupali Goraksha Nalkar, age 45 years occup. housewife at Satral Post Songaon Tal. Rahuri Dist. Ahmednagar - 413 711 Election card No. CNX0729517 PAN No. AQXPN2931L

¶13

Mr Balasaheb Mohan Dhanwat, age major occup. agri. & business, Datta Mala, Gavthan, Songaon Tal. Rahuri Dist. Ahmednagar 413 711 PAN No. BDRPD2084G Aadhaar No. 2537 3789 1733

¶14

Mr Vikas Dagduram Kadu, age 55 years occup. Agril. & business Loni road, Pathare Bk., Songaon Tal. Rahuri Dist. Ahmednagar 413 711, Aadhaar No. 6581 8019 9182 AND Mr Vikas Dagduram Kadu, age 55 years occup. Agril. & business Loni road, Pathare Bk., Songaon Tal. Rahata Dist. Ahmednagar 413 711, Aadhaar No. 6581 8019 9182 … Defendants

¶15

APPEARANCES : For Applicant : Mrs. R.R. Yewale - Advocate For Defendants Mr P.U. Kavade, Advocate

¶16

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 34/2023) Page 2 of 8

¶17

Shri Vimal Gupta, Presiding Officer .

¶18

Pronounced on : 15^th December 2023

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The applicant-bank has filed the present Original Application against defendants No.1 to 4 for recovery of sum of Rs. 48,53,176/- (Rs. forty eight lakhs fifty three thousand one hundred seventy six only) towards outstanding of cash credit loan amount of Rs. 40.00 lakhs for construction business under the name of M/s. Sonu Construction-Civil Contractor availed by them on 16/03/2015, which limit of Rs. 15.00 lakhs enhanced upto Rs. 40.00 lakhs on 13/02/2019, with future interest @10.15% p.a., with monthly rests, from 04/10/2022 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 defendant No.1 as borrower and Defts. No.2 to 4 as guarantors availed the aforesaid term loan facility on execution of

¶21

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 34/2023) Page 3 of 8

¶22

relevant documents in favour of applicant-bank, as enumerated in the Orig. Appln., which the defendants had agreed to repay it with interest thereon within 12 months, subject to annual review. However, the defendants could not follow the repayment programme resulting into classifying the loan account as NPA on 24/07/2021 and issuing legal demand notice on 06/09/2022. It is pleaded that in the meantime, defendants executed the letters of acknowledgment of debt on 25/02/2019 and 29/04/2020 and accepted the liability to repay the loan amount outstanding against them. It is pleaded that though the defendants availed sufficient period to repay the loan amount with interest thereon, they failed to repay it and therefore, the applicant bank is compelled to file the present Origi. Application for recovery of the amount, as aforesaid.

¶23

Defendants No.1 to 4 in response of the summons of the Orig. Application, appeared in the matter. However, only defendant No.1 filed his written statement dated 25/09/2023. It is

¶24

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 34/2023) Page 4 of 8

¶25

contended that the application is not tenable in limine . Applicant has charged and levied exorbitant interest. Application is hopelessly barred by law of limitation. It is emphatically denied that the defendants have created charge over their personal immovable properties by way of mortgage. It is contended that the applicant obtained their signatures on blank format documents by taking undue advantage of the defendants being in dire need of loan amount. The mortgage deed does not create any right, title or interest in favour of applicant. They have denied execution of letters of acknowledgment of debt. The defendants contended that they have deposited amount lastly Rs. 5.00 lakhs on 08/11/2021 and at last, prayed to dismiss the Orig. Application. In the alternate, defendant contends that the bank may be directed to charge 6% p.a. simple interest from the date of disbursement upto the date of NPA by waiving unapplied interest from the date of NPA.

¶26

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶27

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 34/2023) Page 5 of 8

¶28

The point that arises for consideration is, whether the

¶29

applicant-bank is entitled for the claim made in the Orig.

¶30

Application against the defendants, as prayed for ?

¶31

The applicant-bank filed evidence on affidavit (Exh.4) along with list of documents (Exh.5) annexing therewith 22 documents, which are marked as Exh.A.W.1 to A.W. 22 on behalf of applicant, which clinches the claim of the applicant against all the defendants.

¶32

Defendants in support of their contentions in the written statement did not lead any evidence nor attempted to prove it. Moreover, simply denying pleadings at this stage that the applicant has charged exorbitant interest and also got their signatures on blank format documents, is not sufficient. Defendants also failed to prove as to how the Orig. Application is not maintainable. In view of above, it is crystal clear that the defendants have no case at all and the applicant has proved its claim of recovery of amount against the defendants. Moreover,

¶33

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 34/2023) Page 6 of 8

¶34

in view of the fact that the averments in the Original Application

¶35

have gone unrebutted, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled for the prayers made therein. Moreover, perusal of the documents clearly shows that the application is filed well within time. Hence I hold that all the defendants are liable to pay to applicant-bank the claim amount claimed in the Orig. Application with future reasonable interest considering meantime Covid-Pandeic-19 long period and costs.

¶36

In the result, the present orig. application No. 34 of 2023 is allowed with costs, as under:

¶37

(A) Defendants No.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay sum of Rs. 48,53,176/- (Rs. forty eight lakhs fifty three thousand one hundred seventy six only) with future interest @ 8 (eight) % p.a., simple, from 04/10/2022 till the date of realization.

¶38

(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;

¶39

¶40

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 34/2023) Page 7 of 8

¶41

realization of the debt due.

¶42

(D) The applicant is entitled to the costs of the Orig. Appln.

¶43

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

¶44

(F) Issue recovery certificate.

¶45

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

¶46

(Vimal Gupta) PRESIDING OFFICER, Aurangabad, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, Date: 15/12/2023 A urangabad

¶47

(O.A. No. 34/2023) Page 8 of 8

¶48

(Madkar)

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Sonu Construction

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Sonu Construction

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

State Bank of India versus Rajput Pyro Industries

State Bank of India versus Vishwasrao

Union Bank of India versus Balu

Bank of India versus M/S Abhishek Krishi Seva Kendra

Bank of Maharashtra versus Prakash Uttamrao Vidhate

State Bank of India versus Bhaskar Kaknaji Govande