Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Surshti Agro

DRT21 Aug 2023OA/452/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by Union Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 75.33 lakhs plus future interest against the borrower, Srushti Agro, and seven guarantors who did not appear. The Tribunal fixed future interest at 9% per annum and directed sale of mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed; Defendants to pay Rs.75,33,385/- plus 9% future interest from 06.04.2022; direction to sell mortgaged property; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Union Bank of India versus Surshti Agro — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2023)

¶1

Presented on : 06.04.2022 Registered on : 27.04.2022 Decided on : 21.08.2023 Duration : Y M D 01 04 15

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 452/2022.

¶3

Union Bank of India, A body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and having its head office at 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 and Branch Office at Jeevan Tara Building, (LIC), 513 Sadar Bazar, Ganpatdas Devi Path, Satara 415001.

¶4

.. Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1 Srushti Agro, A partnership firm, having its address at Gat No. 662, Yerphale, Taluka Patan, District Satara 415209.

¶7

2 Shri Sagar Babanrao Todkar, Adult, Occ. Business, R/o Survey No.6, Shraddha Niwas, Kalasgaon, Alandi Road, Pune 411015. 3 Sou. Smita Datta Padwal, Adult, Occ. Business,

¶8

R/o Plot No.11, S.No. 51, Road No. 10,

(OA No.452/2022)

Page 1 of 5

[Sanap]

Bhairavnagar, Dhanori, Pune 411015 4 Shri Datta @ Dattatray Shankar Padwal, Adult, Occ. Business, R/o Plot No.11, S.No. 51, Road No. 10, Bhairavnagar, Dhanori, Pune 411015 5 Shri Raghunath Shankar Padwal, Adult, Occ. : Business, R/o : Gat No. 662, Yerphale, Taluka Patan, District Satara 415209. 6 Smt. Kalawati Shankar Padwal, Adult, Occ. : Business, R/o : Gat No. 662, Yerphale, Taluka Patan, District Satara 415209. 7 Shri Santosh Tukaram Pawar, Adult, Occ. : Business, R/o : Vetalwadi, Post Nawadi, Taluka Patan, .. Defendants District Satara 415209.

¶13

APPEARANCES

¶14

For the Applicant Mr. R.B. Ganbote - Advocate For Defendants Ex parte.

¶15

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.75,33,385/-.

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

(Delivered on 21^st August, 2023)

¶18

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery

¶19

of the sum of Rs.75,33,385/- together with future interest @ 13.75% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from defendants.

¶20

Brief facts of the application are as under:

(OA No.452/2022)

Page 2 of 5

[Sanap]

Defendant 1 is a partnership firm and defendants 2 and 3 are its partners. As per the loan application dated 01.12.2015 of defendant 1 through defendants 2 and 3, applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed the Term Loan of Rs.75,00,000/-. Defendants 4 to 7 stood guarantors for the said Term Loan. In order to secure the aforesaid Term Loan, the defendants executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank along with deed of hypothecation of movables and debts in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶25

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. The defendants have executed Acknowledgement of Debt/Liability on 25.03.2019, but failed and neglected to pay outstanding dues of the applicant Bank.

¶26

Hence, this application is filed.

¶27

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 09^th February, 2023 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶28

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Shri Rishi Vatsa, Chief Manager and also relied on original loan transaction documents produced at Sr. Nos. AW-1 to AW-16 annexed to the List (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the

(OA No.452/2022)

Page 3 of 5

[Sanap]

case of the applicant Bank.

¶33

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

¶34

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.

¶35

The applicant Bank has claimed relief in respect of hypothecated assets. However, there is no detailed description of the hypothecated assets. Therefore, relief in terms of hypothecated assets cannot be granted.

¶36

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @ 13.75% per annum. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @ 9% per annum (simple) for the loan account, it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶37

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(A) Original Application No.452/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶40

(B) Defendant Nos.1 to 7 jointly and severally, shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.75,33,385/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand Three

(OA No.452/2022)

Page 4 of 5

[Sanap]

Hundred Eighty Five only) along with future interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 06^th April, 2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶45

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage of the immovable property i.e. Gat No. 216 (P) admeasuring 07 Are at village Abdarwadi, Taluka Patan, District Satara as mentioned in the Annexure N of List (Exhibit 4).

¶46

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

¶47

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶48

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

¶49

Place : Pune Date : 21.08.2023

¶50

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

¶51

(OA No.452/2022)

¶52

Page 5 of 5

¶53

[Sanap]

Union Bank of India v. Surshti Agro

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Surshti Agro

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 Maharashtra versus M/S Shivratna Motors Propp Mr. Pramod Suresh Devkar

Bank of Maharashtra versus Ms Swasti Aluminium Industry

Bank of Maharashtra versus Subhash Mandavkar

Mr. Balwantrai Jaygopal Agarwal versus Capri Global Capital Limited

Hdfc Bank versus M/S J.K. Jewell Prop. J K Gundesha HUF

Punjab National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus Mr. Shrinivas Nagesh Alle Prop M/S Pranoti Packaging