Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Vitthal Ingole

DRT22 May 2023OA/550/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues from borrower and guarantors who failed to repay a produce loan. It awarded the principal with interest at 9% p.a. and granted a recovery certificate against mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Direct payment of Rs.18,24,027/- with future interest @9% p.a. from filing date; permission to sell mortgaged properties; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Vitthal Ingole — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

Presented on: 05.10.2017 Registered on: 10.07.2020 Decided on: 22.05.2023 Duration: Y M D 5 7 17

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.550/2020

¶3

Canara Bank

¶4

A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and having its Head Office at 112 JC Road, Bangalore in the State of Karnataka and one of its branch offices amongst other places at Mahaveer Nagar, Maharaja Chowk, Vakhar Bhag, Sangli – 416 416 known as `Sangli Branch’.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Shri Ambaji Appa Hazare, Adult, Occ: Agriculture, Residing atShirur, Taluka-Athani, DistrictBelgaum.

¶8

Bhagwati Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., having Office at-Plot No.G-9, MIDC, Kupwad, District-Sangli-416 436.

¶9

Shri Krishnagopal Raghunathprasad Maheswari,

(OA No.550/2020)

Page 1 of 8

[NPB]

Adult, Occ: Business, Residing atVenkatesh Shrushti `E’ Bungalow, Madhavnagar, Sangli – 416 416.

¶14

Shri Omkarnath R. Maheswari, Adult, Occ: Business, Residing at- K 47/2, Bishweshwar Ganj, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh-221 002.

¶15

Shri Dwarikaprasad R. Maheswari, Adult, Occ: Business, Residing at-K 47/2, Bishweshwar Ganj, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh – 221 002.

¶16

Shri Rakesh Krishnagopal Maheswari, Adult, Occ: Business, Residing atVenkatesh Shrushti, `E’ Bungalow, Madhavnagar, Sangli-416 416.

¶17

…Defendants

¶18

APPEARANCES

¶19

For the Applicant Mr. Ramesh B Ganbote - Advocate For Defendants None (Ex parte)

¶20

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs.18,24,027.50Ps.

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

(Delivered on 22^nd May, 2023)

¶23

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of Rs.18,24,027.50Ps. together with future interest @16.10% thereon from 01.04.2017 till p.a.

¶24

repayment/realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

(OA No.550/2020)

Page 2 of 8

[NPB]

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶29

Defendant No. 2 is a company engaged in storage of Raisins (Dry Grapes/ bedana) having Cold Storage plant at Plot No.G-9 MIDC, Kupwad, District-Sangli-416 436 and wherein defendant No.1 along with other farmers have stored their Raisins (Dry Grapes).

¶30

On proposal from defendant No.2, defendant No.1 and other 149 farmers were desirous of availing loan against the Raisin deposit receipt issued by defendant No.2. Accordingly, defendant Nos.1 to 6 approached the applicant Bank on 30.05.2013 for Produce Loan of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) to defendant No.1 and 149 others. Defendant No.2 offered itself as Corporate Guarantor and also offered its immovable properties to mortgage. Defendant Nos.3 to 6 also offered themselves as Guarantors for securing the Produce Loan availed by defendant No.1 and 149 others from the Applicant Bank.

¶31

On 30.05.2013, the applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed Produce loan amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) to defendant No.1, with interest @12.25% p.a. with repayment period of 12 months.

(OA No.550/2020)

Page 3 of 8

[NPB]

The defendant No.1 hypothecated Dry Grapes valued at Rs.16,78,050/- in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶36

In order to further secure the Produce Loan of Rs.10,00,000/-, defendant Nos.1 to 6 executed the loan transaction and security documents as mentioned in paragraph No.5.6 of the Original Application. Defendant Nos.2 to 6 executed Guarantee Agreement and thereby stood themselves as Corporate Guarantors for Rupees Fifteen Crores only.

¶37

In order to secure the Corporate Loan of Rs. Fifteen Crores, defendant No.2 created equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds in respect of immovable property i.e. all that piece and parcel of Plot No.G-9 admeasuring 18150 Sq. Mtrs. at Kupwad Maharashtra Industrial Development more Corporation, Taluka-Miraj, District-Sangli, particularly mentioned in paragraph No.5.8 of the Original Application.

¶38

Defendant No.2 has also created Equitable Mortgage in respect of another two immovable properties more particularly mentioned in paragraph No.5.10 of the Original Application.

(OA No.550/2020)

Page 4 of 8

[NPB]

The applicant Bank has contended that defendant No.1 has executed the Acknowledgement of Debt and Security dated 30.10.2015 in favour of the applicant Bank and confirmed the balance in the Produce Loan account of defendant No.1.

¶43

The applicant Bank has further contended that defendants have failed to pay the interest in the Produce Loan account and committed breach of the terms of sanction. Therefore, the account of defendant No.1 turned Non-Performing Asset.

¶44

Thereafter, the applicant Bank through its Advocate issued Recall Notice to defendant Nos.1 to 6 calling upon them to repay the outstanding dues. Despite, Recall Notice, defendants failed to repay the dues.

¶45

Therefore, the applicant Bank by this application has claimed Rs.18,24,027.50Ps. being Ledger Balance in the Term Loan account along with interest up to 04.10.2017.

¶46

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex parte against them vide order dated 25^th November, 2022 below the Application (Exhibit-01).

(OA No.550/2020)

Page 5 of 8

[NPB]

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Shri Rahul Ashok Bansode, Manager which supports the case of the applicant elucidated in the application.

¶51

The applicant Bank has produced on record the original loan transaction documents in evidence (AW-1-1 to AW-116) which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶52

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

¶53

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.

¶54

The applicant has claimed future interest @16.10% p.a. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% p.a., it would be just and reasonable.

¶55

Hence, I pass the following order:-

(OA No.550/2020)

Page 6 of 8

[NPB]

ORDER

(A) Original Application No.550/2020 is allowed with costs.

¶61

(B) Defendant Nos.1 to 6 shall either jointly or severally pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.18,24,027/(Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Twenty-Four Thousand and Twenty-Seven only) with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 05^th October, 2017 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶62

¶63

All that piece and parcel of Plot No.G-9 admeasuring 18150 Sq. Mtrs. At Kupwad Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Taluka-Miraj, District-Sangli, more particularly mentioned in paragraph No.5.8 of the Original Application;

¶64

All that piece and parcel of Survey

(OA No.550/2020)

Page 7 of 8

[NPB]

No.19/1/C/1 admeasuring 00Hector 10 Aar, Survey No.19/1/C/2 admeasuring 00Hector 22 Aar and Survey No.19/1/C/3 admeasuring 00Hector 31 Aar at Village Kupwad, Taluka-Miraj, District Sangli and

¶69

All that piece and parcel of land bearing Gat No.59/1 and Gat No.60 at Village Kavate Ekand, Taluka-Tasgaon, DistrictSangli, more particularly mentioned in paragraph No.5.10 of the Original Application.

¶70

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

¶71

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶72

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

¶73

Sd/-

¶74

Place : Pune Date : 22.05.2023

¶75

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

¶76

(OA No.550/2020)

¶77

Page 8 of 8

¶78

[NPB]

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Vitthal Ingole

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Vitthal Ingole

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bank of India versus Fnv Agro Producer Company Limited

Canara Bank versus Navnath Tarachand Nakhawa

Bank of Maharashtra versus Shobha

Bank of Maharashtra versus Microprop Biotech Pvt. Limited

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

Canara Bank versus Jadhav Dairy Farm