Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Gaurav

DRT8 Nov 2023OA/44/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad, allowed an original application filed by Union Bank of India against two respondents. The court found the claim of Rs. 23,92,385/- unchallenged and uncontradicted, the limitation period was valid, and a charge over the respondents' mortgaged land was established, directing payment of the dues.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay Rs. 23,92,385/- with pendente lite and future interest at 6% p.a. secured by the registered simple mortgage deed dated 30/06/2016; Recovery Certificate issued.

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

¶1

¶2

Presented on:	20/10/2021
Registered on:	15/03/2022
Decided on:	09/11/2023
Duration:	Y M D
	02 00 20

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AT AURANGABAD

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 44 of 2022

¶5

Total claim amount : Rs.23,92,385/-

¶6

UNION BANK OF INDIA, (Erstwhile Corporation Bank having been amalgamated in Union Bank of India vide a Notification No. /Gazette ID-CG-DLE04032020-216535 issued by the Central Government and published in the Gazette of India on 04/03/2020) a Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970, having its Central Office at 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 and inter alia a branch at Union Bank of India, Jalgaon Branch, 201, Aditya Cambers, Navi Peth, Opp. Mahanagar Palika, Navi Peth, Jalgaon Tal. & Dist. Jalgaon – 425001 through its Powe3rof Attorney Holder/Authorised Officer Mr Dhaneshwar Prasad Singh s/o Ram Narayan Singh, age 48 years occup. service as Chief Manager, off/o. same as that of Branch.

… Applicant

Versus

(OA No. 44 of 2022)

Page 1 of 11

[PJM]

Mr Gaurav Ramchandra Marathe, age 27 years occupation agriculture R/o Varkhedi (Khurd) at post Khadke (Bk.) Tal. Erandol Dist. Jalgaon – 425109 PAN : CZUPM2712E Mob. 9096177129,9422211571, Election ID No. XWV4041570

¶13

Mr Kishor Komal Pawar, age 50 years occupation agriculture R/o Dhangar Wada at post Wavdada Tal. Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon – 425116 PAN ATZPP2877J. …Defendants

¶14

APPEARANCES For the Applicant Mr. D.Y. Nandedkar – Advocate

¶15

For Defendants No.

¶16

Ex parte

¶17

Shri Vimal Gupta Presiding Officer JUDGMENT pronounced on : 9^th November 2023

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

This is an application under sub-section (1) of section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (‘The 1993 Act’ for short) for recovery of the dues in the sum of Rs.23,92,385/-

(OA No. 44 of 2022)

Page 2 of 11

[PJM]

(Rs. twenty three lakhs ninety two thousand three hundred eighty five only) together with future interest thereon from 01/07/2021 till repayment/ realization.

¶24

The facts of the case are as under:

¶25

Defendant No.1 is the owner and possessor of land Gat No. 63/2 area to the extent of 4H.0R situated at Varkhedi Shiva Tal. Erandol Dist. Jalgaon.

¶26

Applicant pleads that defendant No.1 approached the applicantbank for grant of crop cash credit loan facility and also for allied agricultural activities and development of land and purchase of pipeline drip irrigation items and other agriculture activities. The applicant bank considering the feasibility of the loan proposal and request of defendant No.1, sanctioned the cash credit loan facility of Rs. 4,49,000/- under the Crop Kisan Credit Card Scheme and loan facility of Rs. 11,26,000/- in the nature of agril. term loan on 28/06/2016, making total Rs. 15,75,000/- , subject to execution of relevant documents and acceptance of the terms and conditions. Defendant No.2 stood voluntarily as guarantor to secure the repayment of the loan amounts by Deft. No.1. Defendant No.1 agreed to repay crop loan running account of Rs.

(OA No. 44 of 2022)

Page 3 of 11

[PJM]

4,49,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. on demand or may get it renewed yearly. He also agreed that he would repay the term loan of Rs. 11,26,000/- by 7 equated yearly installment of Rs. 1,60,860/- each with interest @ 12% p.a. Defendants also agreed that in case of default in making repayment they would pay additional penal interest @ 2% p.a.

¶31

Applicant pleads that defendants No.1 & 2 as borrower and guarantor respectively have executed following documents in favour of applicant-bank to secure the repayment of loan amount, on 01^st July 2016:

¶32

(A) Defts. No. 1 & 2 have issued acknowledgment of sanction letter dated 28/06/2016 sanctioning total loan amount of Rs. 15,75,000/- containing terms and conditions as to repayment of the loan amount.

¶33

(B) Letter of Declaration by Deft. No.1

¶34

(C) Common deed of hypothecation of crops/stocks by Deft. No.1 and thereby hypothecated the assets purchased with the finance of the applicant and also crops standing in the land.

¶35

(D) Guarantee agreement by defendant No.1 thereby guaranteeing repayment of total loan of Rs. 15,75,000/-, which

(OA No. 44 of 2022)

Page 4 of 11

[PJM]

also signed by Deft. No.1.

¶40

(E) Deft. No.1 executed registered Deed of Simple Mortgage vide No. 1977/2016 on 30/06/2016 for total loan of Rs. 15,75,000/- and thereby created charge of said loan on his land Gat No. 63/2 area 4H.0R situated at Varkhedi Shivar Tal. Erandol, of which boundaries are as under :

¶41

To the East – Gat Nos. 64 & 65, to the West – Gat Nos. 58,59 & 60, to the South – Gat No. 63/1 and to the North – Gat No. 67/1 i.e. the parts and parcels of the above property along with all furniture, fixtures and things attached therewith, and more particularly, described in paragraph 5.5 of the Orig. Appln. Defendant No.1 also deposited original sale deed of the said land dated 09/05/2014 with the applicant.

¶42

It is pleaded by applicant that defendant No.1 availed both the loan facilities so granted by the applicant. However, the defendants did not maintain the financial discipline and failed to pay the installments, as agreed and assured. Despite the assurances and promises of the defendants to regularize the loan accounts, the defendants did not pay the dues of the applicant bank, whereby the dues in the loan account kept increasing

(OA No. 44 of 2022)

Page 5 of 11

[PJM]

gradually and interest kept mounting. The defaults committed by the defendants were long and persistent. Therefore, the accounts of the defendants classified as NPA. on 31/03/2021. However, in the meantime, defendant No.1 approached to the applicant on 14/02/2019 and executed acknowledgment of debt for both the loan accounts i.e. cash credit and term loan acknowledging the liability to repay loan amount of Rs. 3,74,990/- of cash credit loan account and that of Rs. 14,14,805/- of term loan as on 14/02/2019. Defendant No.1 also executed demand promissory notes separately accepting the liability to repay the amount due with interest thereon, on demand for both the respective loan amounts.

¶47

It is pleaded that though the defendants granted sufficient opportunity to repay the loan amounts due against them, they failed to repay it. Thus, as the defendants failed and neglected to make the repayment, the applicant bank decided to terminate the loan facilities of the defendants and hence the applicant bank has demanded payment from the defendants time and again and, lastly, issued legal demand notice on 3^rd May 2021 calling upon the defendants to liquidate the entire outstanding i.e.

(OA No. 44 of 2022)

Page 6 of 11

[PJM]

Rs.123,39,366/- inclusive of interest as on 30/06/2021 plus future interest and other charges. Some meagre amounts deposited by defendants came to be adjusted in the loan account, as shown in the ledger extract account.

¶52

It is pleaded that at the foot of the account, there was owing, due and payable by defendants to the applicant bank as on 30/06/2021 Rs. 4,44,645/- of crop cash credit loan + Rs. 19,47,740/- making total Rs. 23,92,385/- inclusive of interest upto 30/06/2021 as shown in ledger extract account. The applicant bank has maintained the loan ledger extract and the entries posted therein are made in the usual and ordinary course of banking business which is supported by the certificate as required under law. Since the defendants failed and neglected to make the payment, the applicant was left with no other alternate but to file the original application which was presented on 20^th October 2021. Thus, the applicant bank prayed to grant the application and issue recovery certificate for the aforesaid amount.

¶53

Defendants No.1 though duly served with the summons by

(OA No. 44 of 2022)

Page 7 of 11

[PJM]

R.P.A.D. vide Exh. 7 and further though Defts. No.1 & 2 served by hand vide service affidavit Exh.8, both the defendants remained absent in the matter and, as such, the application proceeded ex parte and right to file written statement stands closed against them , vide order dated 09/06/2023. Hence, both the defendants have failed to show cause as to why reliefs prayed for should not be granted.

¶58

The applicant bank has filed claim affidavit dated 12/10/2021 of Mr. Dhaneshwar Prasad Singh, Chief Manager (Exh. 4) along with list of original documents (Exh.5) to corroborate and prove its claim as given in the Original Application and thereby adduced in evidence -the original documents at Sr.No. AW-1 to AW-16, which are admitted in evidence, read, recorded and exhibited.

¶59

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant bank. I have scrutinized and examined the allegations made in the Original Application and analyzed the evidence adduced by the applicant which has gone unchallenged, uncontroverted and unrebutted. On going through the documents on record, it clearly shows that the

(OA No. 44 of 2022)

Page 8 of 11

[PJM]

application is filed well within limitation.

¶64

Based on the pleadings, claim affidavit, original documents, oral submissions by the learned counsel of the applicant bank, the applicant bank has corroborated and proved its claim as mentioned in the Original Application.

¶65

The applicant has made out the case of creation of charge over the landed property, as shown in mortgage deed, described above.

¶66

Upon careful scrutiny and examination of Original Application, analyzing the evidence and giving due weightage to the documentary evidence adduced by applicant, I am of the view that there is no reason to disbelieve the claim made by applicant bank.

¶67

In view of the observations made hereinabove, the Original Application filed by the applicant-bank deserves to be granted. Further, due to Covid Pandemic-19 and drought situation in the area, I have to grant reasonable interest from the date of filing of O.A. till realization. Hence, I pass the following order:-

(OA No. 44 of 2022)

Page 9 of 11

[PJM]

O R D E R

(A) Original Application No. 44 of 2022 is allowed with costs.

¶73

(B) Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 are ordered and directed to pay to the applicant-bank either jointly or severally the aggregate sum of Rs. 23,92,385/- (Rs. twenty three lakhs ninety two thousand three hundred eighty five only), with pendente lite and future interest @ 6% annum from 1^st 2021 till per simple July payment/realisation.

¶74

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the registered simple mortgage deed dated 30/06/2016 and thereby created charge on their following lands situated at Varkhedi Shivar Tal. Erandol :

¶75

Land Gat No. 63/2 area 4H.0R situated at Varkhedi Shivar Tal. Erandol, of which boundaries are as under : To the East – Gat Nos. 64 & 65, to the West – Gat Nos. 58,59 & 60, to the South – Gat No. 63/1 and to the North

¶76

– Gat No. 67/1

¶77

i.e. the parts and parcels of the above property along with

(OA No. 44 of 2022)

Page 10 of 11

[PJM]

all furniture, fixtures and things attached therewith, and more particularly, described in paragraph 5.5 of the Orig. Appln.

¶82

(D) The above property be attached and sold in execution and personal properties are also liable to be attached and sold if dues are not cleared.

¶83

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶84

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

¶85

The judgment be uploaded on the official web-site.

¶86

(Vimal Gupta) PRESIDING OFFICER, Aurangabad, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, Date: 09/11/2023 Aurangabad

¶87

(OA No. 44 of 2022)

¶88

Page 11 of 11

¶89

[PJM]

Union Bank of India v. Gaurav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Gaurav

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

Mrs Nilofar Raheman Shaikh versus Icici Home Finance Company Limited

Bhumi Enterprises versus Godavari Laxmi Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Manoj Narayan Adhane versus Adarsh Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Vinaykumar Rikhabchand Kothari versus The Malkapur Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd.

Manda Dhondiba Barve versus Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Limited

Bank of Baroda versus Ravindra Dattatraya Dahiwal