Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Mangaltara Agro Private Limited

DRT16 Dec 2023OA/59/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by Bank of Baroda seeking recovery of an outstanding loan of approx. Rs. 1.06 crore advanced to a corporate defendant and four individual borrowers for agricultural assets, with future interest.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 1,06,60,406.41 with future interest at 8% p.a.; recovery of mortgaged properties; issue of recovery certificate.

Bank of Baroda versus Mangaltara Agro Private Limited — Company and Corporate | DRT (2023)

¶1

Presented on: 24/11/2021 Registered on: 30/03/2022 Decided on: 16/12/2023 Duration: Y M Ds 2 – 0 - 22

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL At Aurangabad.

¶3

Original Application No. 59 of 2022

¶4

Bank of Baroda,

¶5

A body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer) of Undertakings) Act v, 1970 having its Local Head Office at Mandvi, Baroda and amongst other places having one of its Branch at Stressed Assets Recovery Branch and acting through its Power of Attorney Holder and one of Chief Manager Shri Vishalraj Gupta, age 31 years occup. service as Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Plot No. 8, Town Centre, Connaught Place, N-5, CIDCO, Aurangabad and having authority to file the application which includes the authority to sign and verify the application.

¶6

….Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1. M/s. Mangaltara Agro Pvt. Ltd., Gat No. 1053, village Loni Haveli Taluka Parner Dist. Ahmednagar 414302

¶9

Mr Bhausaheb Subhash Kolhe, age 37 years occup. agriculture village Loni Haveli Tal. Parner Dist. Ahmednagar 414 302

¶10

(Madkar) (OA No. 59/2022) Page 1 of 6

¶11

And Mr Bhausaheb Subhash Kolhe, age 37 years occup. agriculture near Vidyadhan Prashala, Loni, Loni Dhamani, Pune, Maharashtra – 410510

¶12

Mr Sanmit Sanjay Kolhe, age 30 years occup. agriculture village Loni Haveli Tal. Parner Dist. Ahmednagar–414 302 And Mr Sanmit Sanjay Kolhe, age 30 years occup. agriculture G-304, 3^rd floor, G Wing, Kamal Park, LBS Marg, near Mangatram Petrol Pump, Bhandup West, Tal. Mulund Dist. Mumbai – Mah. 400 078

¶13

Mr Sanjay Bhagoji Kolhe age 57 years occup. agriculture village Loni Haveli Tal. Parner Dist. Ahmednagar - 414302 And Mr Sanjay Bhagoji Kolhe age 57 years occup. agriculture G-304, 3^rd floor, G wing, Kamal Park, LBS Marg, near Mangatram Petrol Pump, Bhandup West, Tal. Mulund Dist. Mumbai – Mah. 400 078

¶14

Mrs Tarabai Subhash Kolhe, age 57 years occup. agriculture R/o village Loni Haveli Tal. Parner Dist. Ahmednagar – 414 302 … Defendants

¶15

APPEARANCES :

¶16

For Applicant : Mr. V.B. Kulkarni - Advocate For Defendants Ex parte

¶17

(Madkar) (OA No. 59/2022) Page 2 of 6

¶18

Shri Vimal Gupta, Presiding Officer .

¶19

Pronounced on : 16^th December 2023

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The applicant-bank filed the present original application

¶22

against defendants No.1 to 5 for recovery of sum of Rs. 1,06,60,406.41 ps (Rs. one crore six lakhs sixty thousand four hundred six and ps. forty one only) towards outstanding of loan amount availed by them for purchase of cows, equipments, other fixed assets and for construction of animal shed, with future interest @10.75% p.a., with monthly rests, from 09/10/2021 till the date of realization and, in default, for sale of the mortgaged and hypothecated properties, as described in the orig. application. It is pleaded that considering the loan proposal of the defendants, applicant bank sanctioned them term loan of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rs. one crore) for aforesaid purpose on execution of relevant documents, as enumerated in the application, on 29/05/2017, which the defendants agreed to repay it with interest

¶23

(Madkar) (OA No. 59/2022) Page 3 of 6

¶24

thereon @ 10.75% p.a. in 54 installments @ Rs. 1,85,185/- plus

¶25

interest, each. The defendants, however, could not follow the repayment programme and thereby compelled to issue legal demand notice on 09/10/2021 to the defendants. In the meantime, defendants also executed letter of acknowledgment in favour of applicant on 28/02/2019.

¶26

As per service affidavit Exh. 7 though the defendants served with summons of the application, they refused to acknowledge the same and therefore, by pasting copy of summons on the conspicuous part of the unit of Deft.No.1/house of Deft. No.5 it came to be served. Even then, none of the defendants appeared in the matter and, therefore, the matter proceeded ex parte against them, vide order dated 15/04/2023. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶27

The point that arises for consideration is, whether the applicant-bank is entitled for the claim made in the orig. application against the defendants, as prayed for ?

¶28

(Madkar) (OA No. 59/2022) Page 4 of 6

¶29

The applicant-bank filed evidence on affidavit (Exh.4) along with list of documents (Exh.5) annexing therewith 14 documents, which are marked as Exh.A.W.1 to A.W. 14 on behalf

¶30

of applicant, which clinches the claim of the applicant-bank against all the defendants. Moreover, in view of the fact that the averments in the original application have gone unrebutted, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the applicant-bank is entitled for the prayers made therein. Further more, perusal of the documents on record shows that the application is filed within limitation. Hence I hold that all the defendants are liable to pay to applicantbank the claim amount claimed in the orig. application with future reasonable interest considering meantime Covid-Pandeic-19 long period and costs.

¶31

In the result, the present orig. application No. 59 of 2022 is allowed with costs, as under:

¶32

(A) Defendants No.1 to 5 are jointly and severally liable to pay sum of Rs. 1,06,60,406.41 ps (Rs. one crore six lakhs sixty thousand four hundred six and ps. forty one

¶33

(Madkar) (OA No. 59/2022) Page 5 of 6

¶34

only) with future interest @ 8 (eight) % p.a., simple, from 09/10/2021 till the date of realization.

¶35

(B) The applicant-bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged and hypothecated properties, as described in the orig. application towards realization of their dues;

¶36

(C) The applicant-bank is entitled to proceed against the person and properties of all the defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶37

(D) The applicant bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶38

(E) The applicant-bank shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶39

(F) Issue recovery certificate.

¶40

(G) Communicate copy of the order to the parties concerned Order be uploaded on the official website.

¶41

(Vimal Gupta) PRESIDING OFFICER, Aurangabad, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, Date: 16/12/2023 A urangabad

¶42

(Madkar) (OA No. 59/2022) Page 6 of 6

Bank of Baroda v. Mangaltara Agro Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Mangaltara Agro Private Limited

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

Similar cases

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Sonu Construction

Bank of Baroda versus Venkatesh Distributors

Indian Bank versus Manisha Enterprises

Nathshila Agarbatti Works versus Svc Co. Operative Bank Limited

Shrikant and Associates versus The Malkapur Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Snp Agro Private Limited