Allowed

Canara Bank v. Navnath Tarachand Nakhawa

DRT18 May 2023OA/359/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of agricultural loan dues. The court held defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the principal sum with future interest at 9% per annum, though it denied specific relief regarding hypothecated assets due to lack of details. The application proceeded ex parte.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to repay Rs. 34,67,588 plus future interest at 9% per annum; issue Recovery Certificate.

Canara Bank versus Navnath Tarachand Nakhawa — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

Presented on: 25.03.2022 Registered on: 12.04.2022 Decided on: 18.05.2023 Duration: Y M D 1 1 23

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.359/2022

¶4

Canara Bank

¶5

(Erstwhile Syndicate Bank)

¶6

A banking company constituted under the Banking companies Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings Act 1970, having its Head Office at 112 JC Road, Bangalore, Karnataka and one of its branches at Uran Mora, Dist. Raigad – 400 704

¶7

…Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mr. Navnath Tarachand Nakhawa R/at: House No. 57, Near Hanuman Mandir, Navapada, Karanja, Uran – 400 702

¶10

Mr. Vinod Damodar Koli Post – Karanja Navapada, Taluka Uran – 400 702

¶11

Mr. Suresh Maya Patil R/at: Flat No. 101/104, 1^st Floor, “L” Wing, Galaxy Apartment,

(OA No.359/2022)

Page 1 of 5

[SRD]

Behind Syndicate Bank CTS No. 182/A, Mora, Raigad – 400 704

¶16

…Defendants

¶17

APPEARANCES

¶18

For the Applicant	Mrs. Sudha Koloti - Advocate
For Defendants	None(Exparte)

¶19

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.34,67,588.14Ps.

¶20

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 18^th May, 2023)

¶21

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of sum of Rs.34,67,588.14Ps. (Agricultural Loan) together with future interest thereon @11% per annum with monthly rests from 25^th March, 2022 till repayment/ realization of entire dues from the defendants.

¶22

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶23

Defendant No. 1 as Principal Borrower along with approached the applicant Bank seeking financial assistance for purchasing fishing net and fishing boat. After due consideration, the applicant Bank on 30^th March, 2014 sanctioned and disbursed the Agricultural Loan of Rs.15,00,000/- to the defendant No. 1. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 stood as Guarantors to the loan facility availed by defendant

(OA No.359/2022)

Page 2 of 5

[SRD]

No. 1.

The defendants executed necessary loan transaction and security documents and also created hypothecation in favour of the applicant Bank as set out in paragraph No. 5.7 of the Original Application.

¶29

It is contended by the applicant Bank that defendant No. 1 was making payment for some time. Thereafter, defendant No. 1 stopped making payments towards loan account as per terms of sanction. The applicant Bank called upon defendant Nos. 1 to 3 number of times but defendants have not responded positively and did not make any payment. The loan account was running irregular. Even after number of reminders the defendant No. 1 failed to regularize its account therefore the loan account was classified as Non-Performing Asset on 30^th January, 2015.

¶30

The applicant Bank contended that defendant No. 1 executed acknowledgement of debt on 9^th January, 2020 and admitted their liability.

¶31

Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were recalled and guarantees were revoked vide Recall Notice dated 22^nd January, 2020. Notices had been received by the defendants and even after receipt of the notice the defendants failed to comply with the said notice and failed to pay the amount due and continues to arise till

(OA No.359/2022)

Page 3 of 5

[SRD]

date.

Hence, this application is filed.

¶37

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex parte against them vide Order dated 1^st February, 2023 passed below the Application (Exhibit-01).

¶38

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence of Mr. Kunal Dwivedi, Branch Manager which supports the case of the applicant Bank elucidated in the application.

¶39

The applicant Bank has produced on record the Copy/original loan transaction and security documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1/1 to AW-1/14 which corroborate the case of the applicant Bank.

¶40

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

¶41

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 relief in respect of hypothecated assets. However, there is no detailed description with respect to the hypothecated assets. Therefore, the relief in respect of hypothecated assets cannot be granted.

¶43

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @11% per

(OA No.359/2022)

Page 4 of 5

[SRD]

annum with monthly rests for the Agricultural loan account. However, considering the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that, if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable.

¶48

Hence, I pass the following order: -

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(A) Original Application No. 359/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶51

(B) Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank towards Agricultural Loan account the sum of Rs.34,67,588/- (Rupees Thirty-Four Lakhs Sixty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred EightyEight only) with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 25^th March, 2022 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶52

¶53

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

¶54

Sd/(Dilip G. Murumkar) Place: Pune Presiding Officer Date: 18.05.2023 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune

¶55

(OA No.359/2022)

¶56

Page 5 of 5

¶57

[SRD]

Canara Bank v. Navnath Tarachand Nakhawa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Navnath Tarachand Nakhawa

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus Shobha

Bank of India versus Sanjaykumar Teli

Bank of India versus Sangeeta

Bank of India versus Fnv Agro Producer Company Limited

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Vitthal Ingole

Bank of Maharashtra versus Microprop Biotech Pvt. Limited