Allowed

Indian Bank v. Manisha Enterprises

DRT15 Dec 2023OA/66/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Indian Bank against three defendants for recovery of Rs. 22,25,232/- along with future interest. The bank proved the loan via affidavit evidence; defendants were absent, making the claim unrebutted.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 22,25,232/- with 8% p.a. interest; authority to proceed against mortgaged/hypothecated properties and defendants' assets; issue recovery certificate.

Indian Bank versus Manisha Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

Presented on: 22/11/2021 Registered on: 30/03/2022 Decided on: 15/12/2023 Duration: Y M Ds 2 - 0 - 23

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL at Aurangabad. Original Application No. 66 of 2022

¶3

Indian Bank,

¶4

a body corporate constituted under the banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970, having its Head Office at 66, Rajaji Salai, P.B. No. 1384, Chenai, Tamil Nadu State and one of its Branch at Shendra Tal. & Dist. Aurangabad, through its Br. Manager Mr Sandesh Gangadhar Maske

¶5

….Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Manisha Enterprises, Through its proprietor Mr Shivaji Kalyan Wagh Gat No. 236 & 237, Warud Kazi Shivar, Tal. & Dist. Aurangabad 431 154

¶8

Mr. Shivaji Kalyan Wagh

¶9

Age 34 years occupation business R/o Gat No. 108 at post Shekta Tal. & Dist. Aurangabad 431105

¶10

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 66/2022) Page 1 of 6

¶11

Mr Kalyan Namdeo Wagh

¶12

Age major occup. agri. & business

¶13

R/o Golatgaon A/P. Shekta

¶14

Tal. & Dist. Aurangabad – 431154 … Defendants

¶15

APPEARANCES :

¶16

For Applicant : For Defendants: Ex parte.

¶17

Mr. S.J. Pande - Advocate

¶18

Shri Vimal Gupta, Presiding Officer .

¶19

Pronounced on : 15^th December 2023

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The applicant-bank filed the present original application

¶22

against defendants No.1 to 3 for recovery of sum of Rs. 22,25,232/- (Rs. twenty two lakhs twenty five thousand two hundred thirty two only) towards outstanding of loan amount which they availed for business of water purification plant, with future interest @15% p.a., from the date of application till the

¶23

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 66/2022) Page 2 of 6

¶24

date of realization and, in default, for sale of the mortgaged and hypothecated properties, as described in the orig. application. Applicant pleaded that defendants availed term loan amount of 9.25 lakhs for their business of water purification plant on 25/11/2014 on execution of relevant documents in favour of applicant bank to secure the loan amount and acceptance of terms and conditions. The defendants agreed to repay the said term loan by 60 equated monthly installments of Rs. 20,500/- , each, with floating interest thereon @ 10.25% p.a. It is pleaded that again defendants obtained cash credit loan of Rs. 5.00 lakhs from applicant bank on 03/01/2015 on execution of relevant documents and acceptance of terms and conditions, which defendants agreed to repay it on demand with flating interest @ 11.30% p.a. It is pleaded that however, the defendants did not make repayment of the loan amount as agreed, which loan accounts resultantly classified into NPA and thereafter the applicant issued legal demand notice on 05/09/2021 which also did not follow by the

¶25

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 66/2022) Page 3 of 6

¶26

defendants. It is pleaded that in the meantime, defendants

¶27

acknowledged the loan amounts due against them by executing acknowledgments of debt and debt cum security on 01/11/2017, 09/03/2018, 18/09/2018 and 20/10/2020.

¶28

Though the defendants served with summons of the application by speed post and also by hand/personal service, vide pursis/service affidavit Exh. 12, they remained absent and, therefore, the application proceeded ex parte, vide order dated 09/03/2023.

¶29

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶30

The point that arises for consideration is, whether the

¶31

applicant-bank is entitled for the claim made in the orig. application against the defendants, as prayed for ?

¶32

The applicant filed evidence on affidavit (Exh.4) along with list of documents (Exh.5) annexing therewith 23 documents,

¶33

which are marked as Exh.A.W.1 to A.W. 23 on behalf of

¶34

applicant, which clinches the claim of the applicant-bank against

¶35

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 66/2022) Page 4 of 6

¶36

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 is entitled for the prayers made therein. Moreover, perusal of the documents on record clearly shows that the application is filed within limitation. Hence I hold that the defendants are liable to pay to applicant-bank the claim amount claimed in the orig. application with future reasonable interest considering meantime long period Covid-Pandeic-19 and costs.

¶37

In the result, the present Original Application is allowed with costs, as under:

¶38

(A) Defendants No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay sum of Rs. 22,25,232/- (Rs. twenty two lakhs twenty five thousand two hundred thirty two only) with future interest @ 8 (eight) % p.a., simple, from the date of application till the date of realization.

¶39

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

¶40

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 66/2022) Page 5 of 6

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

(F) Issue recovery certificate.

¶45

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

¶46

(Vimal Gupta) PRESIDING OFFICER, Aurangabad, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, Date:15/12/2023 Aurangabad

¶47

(O.A. No. 66/2022) Page 6 of 6

¶48

(Madkar)

Indian Bank v. Manisha Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. Manisha Enterprises

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

State Bank of India versus Rajput Pyro Industries

State Bank of India versus Vishwasrao

Union Bank of India versus Balu

Bank of India versus M/S Abhishek Krishi Seva Kendra

Bank of Maharashtra versus Prakash Uttamrao Vidhate

State Bank of India versus Bhaskar Kaknaji Govande