Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Rekha

DRT15 Nov 2023OA/35/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of an agricultural term loan. The court held defendants liable to pay the claimed amount with interest and costs, recognizing the claim was filed within the limitation period, and directed issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for recovery of Rs. 37,27,151.38 with 6% annual interest and costs from respondents; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Union Bank of India versus Rekha — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

Presented on:	18/10/2021
Registered on:	15/03/2022
Decided on:	15/11/2023
Duration:	Y. M. D.
	2 – 0 - 27

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, at Aurangabad

¶3

Original Application No. 35 of 2022

¶4

Total claim amount – Rs. 37,27,151.38 ps-

¶5

Union Bank of India, (a Government of India Undertaking) having its Central office at Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Mumbai – 400 021 and amongst other branches, one of the Branch at CTS No. 3292, Sukh Niketan, Timber Market, Opp. Sarvodaya Chatralaya, Bhusawal Tal. Bhusawal District Jalgaon through its Authorized Officer Jitendra Kumar Sahu, age 36 years occup. service, Authorized Officer of Union Bank of India, Branch at CTS No. 3292, Sukh Niketan, Timber Market, Opp. Sarvodaya Chatralaya, Bhusawal Tal. Bhusawal Dist. Jalgaon

¶6

IFSC Code : UBIN0532444

¶7

… Applicant

¶8

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 35/2022)

¶9

Page 1 of 6

¶10

Versus

¶11

1 Mrs Rekha Santosh Chaudhari, age major occup. agriculture R/o 147-3, Jay Shriram Complex, Shani Mandir Ward, Bhusawal Tal. Bhusawal Dist. Jalgaon – 425201 PAN No. AAQPC8817P Date of Birth : 01/01/1970

¶12

2 Mr Sachin Santosh Chaudhari, age major occup. agriculture R/o 147-3, Jay Shriram Complex, Shani Mandir Ward, Bhusawal Tal. Bhusawal Dist. Jalgaon – 425201 …Defendants Appearance : For Applicant-bank Mr. Atul A. Mishra, Adv. For Defendants Absent

¶13

Shri Vimal Gupta, Presiding Officer Pronounced on : 15^th November 2023

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This is an application under sub-section (1) of Section 19

¶16

of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for

¶17

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 35/2022)

¶18

Page 2 of 6

¶19

recovery of dues in the sum of Rs. 37,27,151.38 ps (Rs. thirty seven lakhs twenty seven thousand one hundred fifty one and ps. thirty eight only) together with future interest @ 13% p.a. with half yearly rests from the date of filing Orig. Application till repayment/ realization.

¶20

Applicant-bank, in short, pleads that defendant No.1 as borrower and defendant No.2 as guarantor obtained Term Loan of Rs. 18.00 lakhs for crop cultivation on 21/06/2014, on execution of relevant documents in favour of applicant bank including Regd. Mortgage Deed, vide No. 1202 on 11/07/2014 by Deft. No.1 before the Sub-Registrar, Soygaon, for the property shown in para No. 5.5 of the Orig. Application and on acceptance of terms and conditions as to repayment. The defendants agreed to repay the loan amount alongwith interest @ 12.75% p.a.,, with half yearly rests. Applicant bank pleads that thereafter both the defendants got enhancement of said loan amount of Rs. 18.00 lakhs to Rs. 25.00 lakhs as Term Loan from the applicant bank vide sanction letter dated 01/08/2017, on execution of relevant documents in favour of applicant to secure the loan amount including Regd. Mortgage Deed No. 1487 dated

¶21

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 35/2022)

¶22

Page 3 of 6

¶23

03/08/2017in respect of agri. land Gat / Sur.No. 53 area 8H.40R situated at village Warkhedi Tal. Soygaon Dist. Aurangabad and on acceptance of terms and conditions as to repayment alongwith same rate of interest. It is pleaded that however, the defendants failed to repay the loan amount as agreed and therefore, the loan account converted into NPA on 31/03/2018, and consequently, the applicant issued demand notice on 15/09/2021 to which the defendants didn’t pay any response and failed to repay the loan amount. Hence this Orig. Application.

¶24

Defendants though served with summons, they remained

¶25

absent and therefore, the Orig. Application proceeded ex parte against him, vide order dated 24/04/2023.

¶26

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶27

The point that arises for consideration is, whether the applicant-bank is entitled for the claim made in the Orig. Application against the defendant, as prayed for ?

¶28

I have gone through the record of the matter. The applicant bank has filed Claim Affidavit of Mr Jitendra Kumar Sahu at Exh. 4. The applicant bank also filed list of original

¶29

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 35/2022)

¶30

Page 4 of 6

¶31

documents (Exh.5) annexing therewith 21 documents to corroborate and prove its claim, as given in the Original Application, which are marked as Exh.A.W.1 to A.W. 21 on behalf of the applicant, which clinches the claim of the applicantbank against the defendant. Moreover, in view of the fact that the averments in the Original Application have gone unrebutted because of absence of the defendant in the matter, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the applicant-bank is entitled for the prayers made therein. Further more, perusal of the documents on record shows that the Orig. Application is filed well within the period of limitation of three years as he has deposited some meagre amounts in the loan account i.e. Rs. 53000/- on 15/12/2014 and Rs. 15000/- on 25/01/2019. Hence I hold that the defendants are liable to pay to applicant-bank the claimed amount in Orig. Application with future reasonable interest considering meantime Covid-Pandeic-19 long period and costs. Hence the following order.

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

(A) Orig. Appln. No. 35 of 2022 is allowed with costs.

¶34

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 35/2022)

¶35

Page 5 of 6

¶36

(B) Defendant is directed to pay to the applicant-bank the aggregate sum of Rs. 37,27,151.38 ps (Rs. thirty seven lakhs twenty seven thousand one hundred fifty one and ps. thirty eight only) with pendente lite and future interest @ 6 (six)% per annum, simple, from the date of filing Orig. Appln. till payment/ realisation.

¶37

(C) Amount recovered, if any, by applicant-bank during pendency of the Orig. Appln. shall be reduced from such calculated amount before the Recovery Officer and demand notice shall be issued for balance amount.

¶38

(D) The applicant-bank is entitled to proceed against the and as

¶39

mortgaged hypothecated properties, described in the Orig. Application towards realization of the dues of the defendants.

¶40

(E) The applicant-bank is entitled to proceed against the person and properties of the defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶41

(F) The applicant bank is entitled to the costs of the Original Application.

¶42

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

¶43

(H) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶44

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 35/2022)

¶45

Page 6 of 6

¶46

(I) The applicant bank to file affidavit before the Recovery Officer about sale of property and appropriation of money in the loan account under the securitization, if any, before issuance of Demand Notice.

¶47

(J) Copy of order be sent to the Recovery Officer.

¶48

(K) Communicate order to the parties concerned.

¶49

Order be uploaded on the official website.

¶50

( Vimal Gupta ) PRESIDING OFFICER, Aurangabad, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, Date: 15^th Nov. 2023 Aurangabad

¶51

Uploaded on official website on 10/04/2024

¶52

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 35/2022)

¶53

Page 7 of 6

Union Bank of India v. Rekha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Rekha

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

Indu Publication versus Asrec India Limited

Raghoji Vishvnath Pundge versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited

Mr Ashok Bhagwat Ingole versus Poornawadi Nagrik Sahakari Bank

Renuka Prakash Kore versus Bank of Maharashtra

Union Bank of India versus M/S Vishal Traders

Kisanlal Giriraj Sharma versus Fullerton Inida Home finance Co. Ltd.