Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S. Gurudatta Fly Ash Brics Prop Mr. Pradip Sahebrao Khandav

DRT9 Jun 2023OA/43/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Canara Bank for recovery of dues aggregating to ₹31,39,466 from M/s. Gurudatta Fly Ash Bricks. The court modified future interest rates to 9% simple annual and granted a recovery certificate to enforce the fictitously adjusted claim.

What did the court decide?

Original application allowed; defendant to pay ₹31,39,466 with future interest at 9% p.a.; recovery certificate issued; power to sell hypothecated property granted.

Canara Bank versus M/S. Gurudatta Fly Ash Brics Prop Mr… — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2023)

¶1

Presented on: 18.12.2020 Registered on: 25.01.2022 Decided on: 09.06.2023 Duration: Y M D 2 5 22

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.43/2022

¶3

Canara Bank

¶4

A Banking Company incorporated under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having their Head Office at 112 JC Road, Bangalore 560 002 and Branch office at Lohagaon, Pune.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s. Gurudatta Fly Ash Bricks, Through its Proprietor, Mr. Pradip Sahebrao Khandave, Address: S.No.46/18 A, Malwadi Wasti, Lohagaon, Pune-411 047.

¶8

… Defendant

¶9

APPEARANCES

¶10

For the Applicant Mr. Prashant P. Deshpande i/b M V Kini & Co. - Advocate For Defendant Ex parte

¶11

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.31,63,964.82Ps.

(OA No.43/2022)

Page 1 of 7

[ npb ]

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 09^th June, 2023)

¶16

The Applicant Bank has filed the present Application for recovery of aggregate sum of Rs.31,63,964.82Ps. i.e. Rs.19,56,401/- towards OCC Facility together with future interest @16.40% p.a.; Rs.4,44,825/- towards Term Loan-I account together with future interest @10.25% p.a. and Rs.7,62,738.82Ps. towards Term Loan-II account together with future interest @9.55% p.a. thereon from 18^th December, 2020 till full repayment/realization of entire dues from defendant.

¶17

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶18

The defendant is a proprietary concern of Mr. Pradip Sahebrao Khandave which approached to the applicant Bank for OCC limit facility on 21^st September, 2013.

¶19

The applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed the OCC limit facility of Rs.2,00,000/- on 21^st September, 2013 for the purpose of manufacturing of fly ash bricks. The OCC limit was to carry interest @11.20% p.a.

¶20

The defendant signed and executed loan transaction and security documents as set out in paragraph No.5.6 of

(OA No.43/2022)

Page 2 of 7

[ npb ]

the Original Application.

¶25

The applicant Bank contended that on 31^st October, 2014 the aforesaid Open Cash Credit limit was enhanced from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.7,00,000/-. On 08^th January, 2016 the same was further renewed to Rs.10 Lakhs and on 10^th January, 2017 it was once again renewed to Rs.15,00,000/with interest @10.60%p.a.

¶26

The applicant Bank contended that on 23^rd May, 2015 defendant again approached the applicant Bank for Term Loan-I of Rs.15,00,000/- which was sanctioned on 29^th May, 2015 with interest @11.25% p.a. to be repaid in 58 EMIs of Rs.26,351/- with holiday period of 2-3 months.

¶27

The defendant executed Deed of Hypothecation of Machinery on 29^th May, 2015 for securing the repayment of Term Loan facility.

¶28

The applicant Bank further contended that on 06^th June, 2017 defendant once again approached the applicant Bank fir Term Loan-II facility of Rs.10,00,000/- under Loan to MSEs scheme which was sanctioned and disbursed on 06^th June, 2017 with interest @10.15% to be repaid in 60 EMIs of Rs.21,321/-.

(OA No.43/2022)

Page 3 of 7

[ npb ]

The applicant Bank further contended that defendant executed Acknowledgement of Debt and Security dated 06^th January, 2016, 22^nd June, 2018 and 20^th July, 2018 admitting the liability towards all three credit facilities.

¶33

The applicant Bank further contended that after availing credit facilities, defendant started committing default in repayment of EMIs and interest. Therefore, the applicant Bank classified the loan accounts of defendant as Non-Performing Asset on 24^th June, 2019 as per Reserve Bank of India guidelines.

¶34

Thereafter, on 24^th November, 2020 the applicant Bank through its Advocate issued Notice to defendant calling upon it to pay the outstanding dues. Despite Notice, defendant failed to pay the amount due to the applicant Bank.

¶35

Hence, this application is filed.

¶36

Defendant failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex parte against it vide Order dated 05^th April, 2023 passed below the Application (Exhibit-1).

(OA No.43/2022)

Page 4 of 7

[ npb ]

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Ms. Neha Singh, Senior Manager and Authorized Signatory, which supports the case of the applicant Bank elucidated in the application.

¶41

The applicant Bank has produced on record the original loan transaction documents (Sr.Nos.AW-1/1 to AW-1/40) which corroborate the case of the applicant Bank.

¶42

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

¶43

Since the defendant 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.

¶44

The applicant Bank has claimed Penal Interest of Rs.9,600/in OCC account; Rs.5,082/- in Term Loan-I account and Rs.9,817/- in Term Loan-II account totaling to Rs.24,499/as shown in Particulars of Claim at paragraph No.5.17 of the Original Application which cannot be granted. Therefore, these amounts are deducted from respective total claim amounts. Thus, aggregate claim amount is reduced from

(OA No.43/2022)

Page 5 of 7

[ npb ]

Rs.31,63,964.82Ps. to Rs.31,39,465.82Ps. (rounded off to Rs.31,39,466/-).

¶49

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @16.40% p.a. for OCC loan account; @10.25% p.a. for Term Loan-I account and @9.55% p.a. for Term Loan-II account. However, considering facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% (simple) for all three loan accounts, it would be just and reasonable.

¶50

Hence, I pass the following order:-

¶51

ORDER

¶52

(A) Original Application No.43/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶53

(B) Defendant shall pay to the applicant Bank the aggregate sum of Rs.31,39,466/ (Rupees Thirty-One Lakhs Thirty-Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty-Six only) with future interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 18^th December, 2020 till full realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

(OA No.43/2022)

Page 6 of 7

[ npb ]

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting hypothecation of movable property i.e. fly ash bricks, Autoclave Structure Mold Plate, Trolley, Mixer, M.S. Fabricate Bend and Pipe, Water Heater with accessories lying at S.No.46/18A, Near Malwadi Water Tank, Lohagaon, Pune-411 047, more particularly mentioned in Deed of Hypothecation of Machinery dated 06^th June, 2017 and Schedule-A of the Original Application.

¶58

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the hypothecated property to recover its dues.

¶59

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶60

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

¶61

Sd/- (Dilip G Murumkar) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 09.06.2023 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune

¶62

(OA No.43/2022)

¶63

Page 7 of 7

¶64

[ npb ]

Canara Bank v. M/S. Gurudatta Fly Ash Brics Prop Mr. Pradip Sahebrao Khandav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S. Gurudatta Fly Ash Brics Prop Mr. Pradip Sahebrao Khandav

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

Canara Bank versus Jadhav Dairy Farm

Punjab National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus Santosh Devendra Jamadar

Bank of Maharashtra versus Microprop Biotech Pvt. Limited

Mangal Nagnath Parkale versus Bank of Maharashtra

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Deokar Enterprises

Indian Overseas Bank versus Sanjay Tambile