Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Uttam

DRT18 Jul 2023OA/401/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal at Pune allowed an application for recovery of a cash credit term loan. In the absence of respondents, the Tribunal sanctioned the principal amount and reduced the future interest rate from 11.70% to 9%, granting specific relief against mortgaged immovable property.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.23,74,356/- with future interest @9% p.a.; application to sell mortgaged immovable property allowed; recovery certificate issued.

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

¶1

Presented on: 07.09.2021 Registered on: 07.05.2022 Decided on: 18.07.2023 Duration: Y M D 1 10 11

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.401/2022

¶3

Bank of Maharashtra, A Banking Company incorporated 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 branch office amongst other places at Bambavade, Taluka Shahuvadi, District-Kolhapur-413 402.

¶4

… Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mr.Uttam Akaram More, Age-44 Years, Occupation-Business, R/at: Wadicharan, Taluka Shahuwadi, District Kolhapur-416 213.

¶7

Mr. Sharad Akaram More, Age-43 Years, Occupation-Business, R/at: Wadicharan, Taluka Shahuwadi, District Kolhapur-416 213.

¶8

Mr. Jaywant Mahadev Patil, Age-42 Years, Occupation-Business, R/at: Salashi, Taluka Shahuwadi,

(OA No.401/2022)

Page 1 of 7

[ npb ]

… Defendants

District Kolhapur-416 213.

¶14

APPEARANCES

¶15

For the Applicant	Mr. Ashok Tamboli - Advocate
For Defendants	Exparte

¶16

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.23,74,356/-

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

(Delivered on 18^th July, 2023)

¶19

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for

¶20

recovery of sum of Rs.23,74,356/- in respect of Cash Credit loan account together with future interest @11.70% p.a. with monthly rests thereon from the date of filing i.e. 07^th September, 2021 till repayment/realization of entire dues from the defendant Nos.1 to 3.

¶21

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶22

Defendant No.1 is a principal borrower and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are guarantors for the credit facility availed by defendant No.1.

¶23

Defendant No.1 was in need of financial assistance for the purpose of working capital for business and therefore, approached the applicant Bank in the month of September, 2013.

¶24

On 05^th September, 2013 the applicant Bank sanctioned

(OA No.401/2022)

Page 2 of 7

[ npb ]

and disbursed Cash Credit facility of Rs.20,00,000/- to defendant No.1, with interest @13.50% p.a. with quarterly rests. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 offered themselves as guarantors for repayment of the said Cash Credit facility.

¶29

The defendant Nos.1 to 3 executed loan transaction and security documents on 06^th September, 2013 including Composite Deed of Hypothecation of Equipments, implements, Furniture and Stock and Simple Mortgage dated 5^th September, 2013 which was registered in the Office of Sub Registrar, Shahuwadi at Sr.No.1372/2013, in respect of immovable property more particularly mentioned in paragraph No.5.5 of the Original Application.

¶30

The applicant Bank contended that the said Cash Credit facility was restructured and converted into Term Loan account on 30^th April, 2019.

¶31

The applicant Bank further contended that defendant Nos.1 to 3 executed Balance and Security Confirmation Letters on 03^rd September, 2016 and 20^th April, 2019 thereby admitted their liability.

¶32

The applicant Bank further contended that defendant Nos.1 to 3 failed and neglected to repay the amount outstanding

(OA No.401/2022)

Page 3 of 7

[ npb ]

at the foot of the account. Therefore, the applicant Bank through its Advocate issued Recall Notice on 29^th September, 2020 to defendants. Despite issuance of Recall Notice, defendants failed and neglected to comply with the demands in the said Notice.

¶37

Hence, this application is filed.

¶38

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex parte against them vide Order dated 08^th February, 2023 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶39

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

¶40

The applicant Bank has produced on record the original loan transaction and security documents at Sr.No.AW-1/1 to AW-1/21 which corroborate the case of the applicant Bank.

¶41

I have heard arguments of the learned Advocate for the

(OA No.401/2022)

Page 4 of 7

[ npb ]

applicant Bank.

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.

¶47

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 terms of hypothecated assets cannot be granted.

¶48

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @11.70% p.a. with monthly rests for Term Loan account. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% p.a. (simple) for both the loan accounts, it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶49

Hence, I pass the following order:-

¶50

ORDER

¶51

(A) Original Application No.401/2022 is allowed with costs.

(OA No.401/2022)

Page 5 of 7

[ npb ]

(B) Defendant Nos.1 to 3 shall jointly or severally pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.23,74,356/(Rupees Twenty-Three Lakhs Seventy-Four Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty-Six only) with future interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 07^th September, 2021 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶56

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage of the immovable property i.e. All those pieces and parcels of land situate being and lying at Village Wadicharan in the Registration District Kolhapur, Sub-District Shahuwadi bearing Milkat No.676 admeasuring 825 Sq. Ft. i.e. 76.67 Sq. Mtrs. two floor RCC Construction and Milkat No.677 admeasuring 3750 Sq. Ft. i.e. 348.51 Sq. Mtrs., more particularly mentioned in paragraph No.5.5 of the Original Application.

¶57

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged

(OA No.401/2022)

Page 6 of 7

[ npb ]

property 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

Place : Pune Date : 18.07.2023

¶65

Sd/- (Dilip G Murumkar) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune

¶66

(OA No.401/2022)

¶67

Page 7 of 7

¶68

[ npb ]

Bank of Maharashtra v. Uttam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Uttam

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

Bank Of Baroda versus Aaj Ka Anand Papers Ltd.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Dnyandev Shinde

Indian Overseas Bank versus Bhauso Kare

Union Bank of India versus Office of Official Liquidator (Siddheshwar Industries Private Limited)

State Bank of India versus Suhail Pagarkar

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