Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Pruthviraj Ashok Chavan

DRT8 Nov 2023OA/468/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application was filed by Union Bank of India under the RDB Act to recover dues of Rs. 32,84,261 with interest from three respondents who were borrowers and guarantors. The respondents did not appear. The Tribunal examined the loan documents, mortgage deed, and admitted the bank's evidence as unchallenged.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to pay Rs. 32,84,261 with interest and securing the amount by attaching and selling the mortgaged property to be sold in execution.

Union Bank of India versus Pruthviraj Ashok Chavan — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

Presented on: 06/10/2022 Registered on: 04/11/2022 Decided on: 08/11/2023 Duration: Yr Mts. Ds 01 01 03

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AT AURANGABAD

¶4

Original Application No. 468 of 2022

¶5

Total claim amount – Rs. 32,84,261/UNION BANK OF INDIA, A Body Corporate and constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition of Undertakings) Act v, 1970, having its Local Head Office at Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Backbay Reclamation Bombay – 400 021 and one of its branch at Karjat Taluka Karjat and Dist. Ahmednagar and acting through its authorized officer and one of its Branch Manager Mr Dattatraya Bhanudas Londhe, age 34 years, occup. service as Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Karjat Branch Taluka Karjat Dist. Ahmednagar, having authority to file the application which includes the authority to sign … Applicant and verify the application.

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 Mr Pruthviraj Ashok Chavan, age 46 years occupation agriculture at post 622, Goddaba Galli, Daxin Baju (Southern side), Gavande Galli, Karjat Dist. Ahmednagar 414402 - PAN No. AGIPC3195Q Mob. No. 9511579090

(OA No. 468 /2022)

Page 1 of 10

[PJM]

2 Mr Bhausaheb Rajabhau Pisal, age 41 years occupation agriculture at post Bargewadi Gaikarwadi Tal. Karjat Dist. Ahmednagar (414402) PAN No. ARSPP9718M Mob. No. 9423166660, 9762620462

¶12

3 Mr Ramkrishna Prabhakar Netke, age 56 years occupation agriculture at post Bargewadi, Gaikarwadi Tal. Karjat Dist. Ahmednagar AND Kuldhara Road (Barister Nagar), Karjat Tal. Karjat Dist. Ahmednagar PAN No. AEAPN9504J Mob. No. 9423389705

¶13

…Defendants

¶14

APPEARANCES

¶15

For the Applicant Mr. Vivek B. Kulkarni – Advocate For Defendants No. 1 to 3 None

¶16

Shri Vimal Gupta Presiding Officer

¶17

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 8^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.

(OA No. 468 /2022)

Page 2 of 10

[PJM]

32,84,261/- (Rs. thirty two lakhs eighty four thousand two hundred sixty one only) together with future interest thereon from 01/10/2022 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. 59/7 area 2H. 55R situated at village Wadgaon Tanpura Tal. Karjat. He approached the applicant bank with an application dated 11/04/2014 seeking financial assistance for cultivation of Capsicum in his above land. Defendants No.2 & 3 voluntarily showed their willingness to stand as guarantors for repayment of the loan amount to be advanced to Deft. No.1.

¶26

Pursuant to the loan application submitted by defendant No.1, the applicant bank sanctioned the loan of Rs. 29,80,000/- on 24/04/2014, subject to terms and conditions mentioned in the sanction letter dated 24/04/2014 and execution of relevant documents. Defendants agreed to repay the loan amount with floating interest @ 13% per annum with yearly rests, by 7 equated yearly installments of Rs. 4,25,714/- , each, plus interest and first installment was to be paid on or before March 2015.

(OA No. 468 /2022)

Page 3 of 10

[PJM]

Applicant further pleads that on 02/05/2014 defendant No.1 as

¶31

borrower and Defts. No. 2 & 3 as guarantors have executed and signed the following security documents to secure the agril. term loan of Rs. 29,80,000/-, as below:

¶32

(A) Deft. No.1 executed Simple Loan Agreement, Agreement on rate of interest, Declaration/Undertaking & letter of continuity ;

¶33

(B) Deft. No.1 also executed Hypothecation Agreement in the sum of Rs. 29,80,000/- agreeing repayment of loan amount with interest thereon, as aforesaid, and also hypothecated the assets purchased with the finance of the applicant-bank and also the crops standing over his above mentioned land;

¶34

(C) Deft. No.1 has also executed registered Simple Mortgage Deed, vide Regn. No. KJA-1142-2014 dated 24/04/2014 for the sum of Rs. 29,80,000/- and thereby created charge of the applicant over his land Gat No. 59/7 area 2H.55R situated at Wadgaon Tanpura Tal. Karjat Dist. Ahmednagar, bounded by : to the East – Gat No. 59/5, to the West – Gat No. 59/3, to the South – road and to the North – Shiv (boundary). i.e. parts and parcels of the above property a/w. all furniture, fixtures &

(OA No. 468 /2022)

Page 4 of 10

[PJM]

things attached therewith,

¶39

(D) Defts. No.2 & 3 as guarantors duly executed the Deed of Guarantee to secure the repayment of agri. term loan of Rs. 29,80,000/- by deft. No. 1.

¶40

Thereafter, defendant No.1 has availed the full loan facility granted by the applicant-bank, as shown in ledger extract filed with the application. However, after availing the above said loan facility, the defendants did not maintain the financial discipline-repayment programme and failed to pay the installments. Despite the assurances and promises of the defendants to regularize the loan account, the defendants did not pay the dues of the applicant bank, whereby the dues in the loan account kept increasing gradually and interest kept mounting. The defaults committed by the defendants were long and persistent. Therefore, the account of the defendants classified as NPA on 30/09/2021.

¶41

Since the defendants failed and neglected to make the repayment, the applicant bank decided to terminate the loan facility of defendant No. 1 and hence the applicant bank demanded payment from the defendants time and again and,

(OA No. 468 /2022)

Page 5 of 10

[PJM]

lastly, issued legal demand notice on 14/01/2022 calling upon the defendants to liquidate the entire outstanding loan amount of Rs. 29,47,454/- plus interest w.e.f. 01/10/2021 and other charges. However, defendants did not pay any heed to it and failed to repay the loan amount. It is further pleaded that in the meantime, defendants No.1 to 3 executed Debit Balance Confirmation and Acknowledgment on 13/06/2016 and 01/10/2018 accepting the liability to repay the loan amount due against them of Rs. 21,78,743/- as on 31/03/2016 and Rs. 22,49,823/- as on 30/09/2018, respectively. Defendant No.1 also executed simple debit balance confirmation on 06/10/2020 and thereby accepted the liability to repay loan amount due that of Rs. 26,52,627/- as on 30/09/2020.

¶46

At the foot of the account, amount of Rs. 32,84,261/- as on 30/09/2022 was owing, due and payable by defendants to the applicant bank. The applicant bank has maintained the loan ledger extracts 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

(OA No. 468 /2022)

Page 6 of 10

[PJM]

applicant was left with no other alternate but to file the original application which was presented on 06/10/2022. Thus, the applicant bank prayed to allow the application and recovery certificate for the aforesaid amount plus further interest thereon.

¶51

Though the defendants duly served with the summons, vide service affidavit Exh. 8, they did not appear in the matter and therefore, the application proceeded ex parte against them, vide order dated 05/06/2023. Hence, defendants have failed to show cause as to why reliefs prayed for should not be granted.

¶52

The applicant bank filed claim affidavit (Exhibit-4) of Mr. Dattatraya Bhanudas Londhe, Branch Manager along with list (Exh.5) of original documents to corroborate and prove its claim as given in the Original Application thereby adducing in evidence -the original documents at Sr.No. AW-1 to AW-14 which are admitted in evidence, read, recorded and exhibited.

¶53

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

(OA No. 468 /2022)

Page 7 of 10

[PJM]

unrebutted.

Based on the pleadings, claim affidavit, original documents, oral submissions by the learned counsel of the applicant bank, the applicant bank has tried to corroborate and prove its claim as mentioned in the Original Application. On going through the documents on record, the application is well within limitation.

¶59

The applicant-bank has made out the case of creation of charge over the property-land, described in paragraph No. 5.3 of Original Application,

¶60

Upon careful scrutiny and examination of Original Application, analyzing the evidence and giving due weightage to the documentary evidence adduced by applicant, which has gone unchallenged due to absence of all the defendants in the matter, I am of the view that there is no reason to disbelieve the claim made by applicant bank.

¶61

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, I have to grant reasonable interest. Hence, I pass the following order:-

(OA No. 468 /2022)

Page 8 of 10

[PJM]

O R D E R

(A) Original Application No. 468 of 2022 is allowed with costs.

¶67

(B) Defendants No. 1 to 3 are ordered and directed to pay to the applicant-bank either jointly or severally the aggregate sum of Rs. 32,84,261/- (Rs. thirty two lakhs eighty four thousand two hundred sixty one only)) with pendent lite and future interest @ 6% per annum simple from 01^st October 2022 till payment/realisation.

¶68

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting Registered Simple Mortgage Deed in respect of land Gat No. 59/7 admeasuring 2H.55R situated at village Wadgaon Tanpura Tal. Karjat Dist. Ahmednagar, bounded by : to the East – Gat No. 59/5, to the West – Gat No. 59/3, to the South – road and to the North – Shiv (boundary).

¶69

i.e. all the parts and parcels of the Above property along with all furniture, fixtures and things attached therewith,

¶70

(D) The above property be attached and sold in

(OA No. 468 /2022)

Page 9 of 10

[PJM]

execution.

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶76

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

¶77

The judgment be uploaded on the official website.

¶78

(Vimal Gupta) PRESIDING OFFICER, Aurangabad, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, Date: 08/11/2023 Aurangabad

¶79

(OA No. 468 /2022)

¶80

Page 10 of 10

¶81

[PJM]

Union Bank of India v. Pruthviraj Ashok Chavan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Pruthviraj Ashok Chavan

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