Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. Nana Kare

DRT1 Aug 2023OA/36/2022

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 loan and KCC dues. The court reduced the future interest rate to 9% p.a. (simple) and granted a right to sell mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of aggregate sum Rs. 39,78,215/- with future interest @9% per annum simple; Direction to sell mortgaged properties; Issue of Recovery Certificate.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Nana Kare — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

Presented on: 10.09.2021 Registered on: 20.12.2021 Decided on: 01.08.2023 Duration: Y M D 01 11 21

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.36/2022

¶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. Nana Madhav Kare R/at: Village Varkute Budruk, Taluka Indapur, District Pune – 413 106

¶8

Mr. Ashok Panjabrao Markad R/at: 237-1, Shinde Falake, Devakar Gadekar Vasti, Varkute Budruk, Taluka Indapur, District Pune – 413 106

(OA No.36/2022)

Page 1 of 7

[SRD]

Mr. Panjabrao Krishna Markad R/at: 237-1, Shinde Falake, Devakar Gadekar Vasti, Varkute Budruk, Taluka Indapur, District Pune – 413 106 … Defendants

¶13

APPEARANCES

¶14

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

¶15

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.39,78,215.07Ps.

¶16

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 1^st August, 2023)

¶17

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of aggregate sum Rs.39,78,215.07Ps i.e. Rs.35,31,521/- (Agri Term Loan) together with future interest thereon @12.75% per annum with half yearly rests from 5^th September, 2021 and Rs.4,46,694.07Ps. (KCC Loan) together with future interest thereon @11.50% per annum with yearly rests from 1^st September, 2021 respectively, till repayment/ realization of entire dues from the defendants.

¶18

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶19

The defendant No. 1 through defendant Nos. 2 and 3 approached the applicant Bank seeking financial assistance

(OA No.36/2022)

Page 2 of 7

[SRD]

for land development, pipeline and cultivation of Sugarcane and after due consideration, the applicant Bank on 13^th January, 2014 sanctioned and disbursed Agri Credit Facilities for an amount of Rs.19,00,000/- consisting of two Facilities i.e. Agriculture Term Loan under IOB Green Credit Scheme for an amount of Rs.16,00,000/- and Agri Kisan Credit Card (KCC) for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- respectively. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 stood as Guarantors to above said Agri Credit Facilities availed by 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 on request of defendant No. 1 renewed Agri Credit facilities on 9^th January, 2015 on certain terms and conditions.

¶26

The applicant Bank contended that the loan accounts of the defendants became irregular due to non-repayment of Principal and Interest as per terms of sanction. The applicant Bank called up defendant No. 1 and its Guarantors and also sent number of reminders for payment but of no avail. In spite of all the reminders, until date defendants neither made

(OA No.36/2022)

Page 3 of 7

[SRD]

any efforts to approach the applicant Bank and nor regularize the loan accounts. Therefore, the applicant Bank classified the loan Accounts as Non-Performing Asset on 16^th February, 2018.

¶31

Defendants executed Revival Letters on 14^th December, 2016 and 18^th October, 2019 thereby admitted their liability.

¶32

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.

¶33

Hence, this application is filed.

¶34

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex parte against them vide Order dated 30^th December, 2022 passed below the Application (Exhibit-01).

¶35

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.

¶36

The applicant Bank has produced on record the Original /True Copy loan transaction and security documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1/1 to AW-1/21 which corroborate the case of the

(OA No.36/2022)

Page 4 of 7

[SRD]

applicant Bank.

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

¶42

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.

¶43

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 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.

¶44

Hence, I pass the following order: -

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(A) Original Application No. 36/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶47

(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.39,78,215/- (Rupees ThirtyNine Lakhs Seventy-Eight Thousand Two Hundred Fifteen only) with future interest @9%

(OA No.36/2022)

Page 5 of 7

[SRD]

per 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.

¶52

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by valid and subsisting mortgage of immovable property i.e. All that piece and parcel of Agricultural Land in,

¶53

Gat No. 78/3/B, totally admeasuring area about 4 H 53 R + P.K. 1 H 22 R total 5 H 75 R situated at village Varkute Bk., Taluka Indapur, District Pune within the jurisdiction of Division Pune, Sub Division and Taluka and within the sub limits of Sub-Registrar Indapur, District Pune

¶54

Out of land admeasuring 1 H 14 R + P.K. 0 H 30 R totally 1 H 44 R belonging to Mr. Nana Kare.

¶55

Gat No. 125, totally area admeasuring 9 H 90 R situated at village Karewadi Tal. Indapur, Dist. Pune within the jurisdiction of Division Pune, Sub Division and Taluka & within Sub Registrar Indapur Dist. Pune.

(OA No.36/2022)

Page 6 of 7

[SRD]

Out of that land admeasuring 0 H 80 R belonging to Mr. Nana Madhav Kare.

¶60

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.

¶61

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

¶62

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶63

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

¶64

Sd/(Dilip G. Murumkar) Place: Pune Presiding Officer Date: 01.08.2023 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune

¶65

(OA No.36/2022)

¶66

Page 7 of 7

¶67

[SRD]

Indian Overseas Bank v. Nana Kare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. Nana Kare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Pandurang Ramchandra Kale versus Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank

State Bank of India versus Ketan Vinod Kadam

Mr Suhas Abhimanyu Shinde versus the Muslim Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Ar Landmark LLP

Indian Overseas Bank versus Indrajeet Salunke

Encore Assets Reconstruction Company Private Limited versus M/S. Dilip Gyanaba Zol, Prop. Dilip Gynaba Zol