Allowed

Encore Assets Reconstruction Company Private Limited v. M/S. Dilip Gyanaba Zol, Prop. Dilip Gynaba Zol

DRT7 Aug 2023OA/587/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by an Asset Reconstruction Company to recover a loan of Rs. 1.62 crores along with future interest at 9% p.a. from the borrowers and guarantors, who failed to appear and contest.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs. 1,62,24,050/- with 9% future interest, sale of mortgaged property, and issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Encore Assets Reconstruction Company Private Limited versus… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

Presented on: 27.04.2022 Registered on: 23.06.2022 Decided on: 07.08.2023 Duration: Y M D 1 3 11

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.587/2022

¶3

Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and registered as an Asset Reconstruction Company pursuant to Section 3 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 having its registered office at Caddie Commercial Tower, Regus Business Centre, 5^th Floor, Aerocity (Dial), New Delhi – 110 037 and its Corporate Office at 5^th Floor, Plot 137, Sector 44, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 002.

¶4

… Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mr. Dilip Gynaba Zol Prop. of M/s. Dilip Gyanba Zol Age: Adult, Occupation: Business R/at – Plot No.193, Indira Housing Soc. Kabnur, Ichalkaranji 416 115.

¶7

Mr. Suraj Dilip Zol

(OA No.587/2022)

Page 1 of 7

[KAUR]

Prop. of M/s. Suraj Dilip Zol Age: Adult, Occupation: Business R/at – Plot No.193, Indira Housing Soc. Kabnur, Ichalkaranji 416 115.

¶12

Mrs. Surekha Dilip Zol Prop. of M/s. Surekha Dilip Zol Age: Adult, Occupation: Business R/at – Plot No.193, Indira Housing Soc. Kabnur, Ichalkaranji 416 115.

¶13

Mr. Santosh Vishnu Kupate Age: Adult, Occupation: Business R/at – 21/804, Behind Shiv Shankar Sizing, Javaharlal Nagar, Ichalkaranji : 416 117. 5. Mr. Vasant Bhau Mulik Age: Adult, Occupation: Business R/at – 21/1197, Behind Shiv Shankar Sizing, Javaharlal Nagar, Ichalkaranji : 416 117. …Defendants

¶14

APPEARANCES For the Applicant Mr. N.K. Khasbardar - Advocate For Defendants Ex parte

¶15

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.1,62,24,050/-

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

(Delivered on 7^th August, 2023)

¶18

The Applicant Asset Reconstruction Company (ARC) has filed the present application for recovery of aggregate sum of Rs.1,62,24,050/- together with future interest thereon @16% per annum with monthly rests from 15^th February, 2022 till

(OA No.587/2022)

Page 2 of 7

[KAUR]

repayment/realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶23

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶24

Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the principal borrowers, mortgagors and defendant Nos.4 and 5 are guarantors to the loan availed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 from The Kallappanna Awade Ichalkaranji Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd., Ichalkaranji (hereinafter referred as Assignor Bank).

¶25

The Kallappanna Awade Ichalkaranji Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd., Ichalkaranji vide Deed of Assignment dated 7^th August, 2020 has assigned the debt of defendant Nos.1 to 3 to the applicant ARC.

¶26

It is contended that on or about 5^th August, 2019, defendant Nos.1 to 3 approached the Assignor Bank and requested for different credit facilities in the nature of Mortgage Term Loans. After due consideration, the Assignor Bank vide three separate Sanction Letters dated 9^th September, 2019 granted following facilities to the defendants:

¶27

S.No.	Facility	Sanctioned Amount (Rs. In lakhs)	Name of the borrower	Name of the guarantor (s)
1.	LM-29	40.00	Defendant	Defendant
	(Mortgage Loan)		No.1	Nos.2 to 5
2.	LM-30	40.00	Defendant	Defendant

(OA No.587/2022)

Page 3 of 7

[KAUR]

	(Mortgage Loan)		No.2	Nos.1, 3 to 5
3.	LM-31	39.00	Defendant	Defendant
	(Long Term Mortgage Loan)		No.3	Nos.1,2, 4 & 5

¶32

The defendants accepted the terms of sanction and executed necessary loan transaction and security documents in favour of the Assignor Bank as set out in Paragraph Nos.5.9 to 5.14 of the Original Application. In order to secure the above mentioned credit facilities, defendant Nos.1 to 3 executed Registered Mortgage in favour of the Assignor Bank in respect of immovable property more particularly described in paragraph No.5.8 of the Original Application.

¶33

It is contended that after availing the credit facilities, the defendants committed default in repayment of loan amounts and committed breach of terms and conditions of Sanction Letter. Consequently, on 11^th December, 2019 the account of defendants was classified as Non-Performing Assets.

¶34

On 7^th August, 2020 the Assignor Bank assigned the debt of defendants together with all the rights, title and interest in underlying security interests created in its favour to applicant ARC. Therefore, on 27^th August, 2021 the

(OA No.587/2022)

Page 4 of 7

[KAUR]

applicant ARC issued Legal Notices to the defendants thereby calling upon them to repay the outstanding amount. Despite service of Notice, defendants failed and neglected to comply with the demand in the said Notice.

¶39

Hence, this application is filed.

¶40

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex parte against them vide Order dated 20^th February, 2023 passed below the Application (Exhibit-01).

¶41

The applicant ARC has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Soumitra Acharya, Senior Executive which supports the case of the applicant elucidated in the application.

¶42

The applicant ARC has produced on record the original loan transaction and security documents at Sr.Nos.AW-1/1 to AW-1/23 which corroborate the case of the applicant.

¶43

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

¶44

Since the defendants failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of the applicant ARC. Therefore, the applicant ARC is entitled for reliefs as claimed.

(OA No.587/2022)

Page 5 of 7

[KAUR]

The applicant ARC has claimed future interest @16% per annum with monthly rests. However, considering the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶49

Hence, I pass the following order:-

¶50

ORDER

¶51

(A) Original Application No.587/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶52

(B) Defendant Nos.1 to 5 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Asset Reconstruction Company the sum of Rs.1,62,24,050/- (Rupees One Crore Sixty-Two Lakhs Twenty-Four Thousand and Fifty only) with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 27^th April, 2022 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶53

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage of immovable property i.e. all that piece and parcel of property situated at Ichalkaranji, Tal. Hatkanangale, District Kolhapur having its Gat No.19/3/A & 19/3/B out

(OA No.587/2022)

Page 6 of 7

[KAUR]

of N.A. land within Indira Sahakari Gruhnirman Sanstha Maryadit, Ichalkaranji (Kabnoor) Out of its Plot No.193A and 193B total admeasuring 2262 Sq.Ft. (each area 1131-0 Sq.Ft.) i.e. 207-30 Sq.Mtrs and RCC Building construction thereon more particularly described in Paragraph No.5.8 of the Original Application.

¶58

(D) The applicant ARC is entitled to sell the mortgaged 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 and defendants.

¶61

Sd/(Dilip G Murumkar) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date: 07.08.2023 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune

¶62

(OA No.587/2022)

¶63

Page 7 of 7

¶64

[KAUR]

Encore Assets Reconstruction Company Private Limited v. M/S. Dilip Gyanaba Zol, Prop. Dilip Gynaba Zol

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Encore Assets Reconstruction Company Private Limited v. M/S. Dilip Gyanaba Zol, Prop. Dilip Gynaba Zol

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus Indrajeet Salunke

State Bank of India versus M/S. Ar Landmark LLP

Indian Overseas Bank versus Nana Kare

Union Bank of India versus Shri. Mahesh Siddheshwar Manekar

Bank of Maharashtra versus Phadtare Fabtech Pvt. Ltd.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Santosh Pokade