Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Vijay Zankjar

DRT3 Aug 2024OA/1002/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Bank of Baroda's original application for recovery of a term loan. The court reduced the claim by deducting ungranted charges and modified future interest to 9% per annum, directing the respondent defendants to pay the adjudicated amount.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate directed; defendants ordered to pay Rs.13,89,673/- with future interest at 9% per annum.

Bank of Baroda versus Vijay Zankjar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 10.03.2017 Registered on: 03.09.2022 Decided on: 03.08.2024 Duration: Y M D 07 04 23

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.1002/2022.

¶3

Bank of Baroda ,

¶4

A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Head Office at Baroda House, Mandavi, Baroda-390 006, having its Regional Office at 2^nd Floor, Sharda Centre, 11/1, Khilare Path, Erandawane, Pune-4 and Branch office at Shop No.2, Survey No.90, Lakshadweep Palace, Pimple Saudagar, Pune-411 027.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Mr. Vijay Chintamani Zankar Age 45 years, Occ.- Business,

¶8

Mrs. Ashwini Vijay Zankar Age 38 years, Occ.- Business, Both R/at – Flat No.10, C-Building, Mantri Niketan, Dapodi, Pune-12. … Defendants APPEARANCES For the Applicant Mr. M. D. Kulkarni For Defendants Ex parte.

¶9

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs.14,04,673/-.

(OA No.1002/2022)

Page 1 of 5

[ANIL]

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 3^rd August, 2024)

¶14

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery certificate of Rs.14,04,673/- with further interest thereon @10.50% per annum with quarterly rests from 01.03.2017 alongwith penal interest as agreed thereon from the date of filing this application till re-payment and /or realization of the claim amount from the defendants.

¶15

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶16

Defendant No.1 and 2 are husband - wife and run a Canteen. The defendants have approached Applicant Bank on 12.03.2014 for a Term Loan to purchase a Car. The Applicant Bank considered the request of the defendants and sanctioned Term Loan Facility of Rs.13,00,000/- for purchase of Car to the Defendants.

¶17

In order to secure the said Loan Facilities, the defendants have executed necessary loan transaction and security documents, in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶18

The defendants have executed Instrument of Hypothecation of Tata Make Vehicle - Aria Prestige 4 x 4, in favour of the Applicant Bank, on 12.03.2014.

(OA No.1002/2022)

Page 2 of 5

[ANIL]

It is contended by the Applicant Bank that despite of repeated requests, reminders and call letters dated 25.05.2016 and 28.06.2016, the defendants failed to repay term loan account and ultimately on 25.07.2015, their Term Loan Account became Non Performance Assets. Therefore, Applicant Bank issued Legal Notice on 07.11.2016 through Advocate M. D. Kulkarni to the defendants and called upon them to pay the outstanding loan amount. The notice issued to the defendants was returned with an endorsement as “Refused” on 10.11.2016. By refusing to accept the notice, defendants have acknowledged the entire contents of the said Legal Notice.

¶23

Hence, this application is filed.

¶24

Defendants have refused to accept the notice and failed to appear in the proceeding. Hence, the application proceeded ex parte against them vide Order dated 29.04.2024 passed below the Application (Exhibit-01).

¶25

The Applicant Bank filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Supreet Shivalingappa Wale, Chief Manager, which supports the case of the applicant elucidated in the application.

(OA No.1002/2022)

Page 3 of 5

[ANIL]

The Applicant Bank has produced in evidence the loan documents at Exhibits AW-1 to AW-16, which corroborate the case of the applicant Bank.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

The Applicant Bank has claimed relief in respect of movable property i.e. Tata Make Vehicle - Aria Prestige 4 x 4, which was hypothecated with the Applicant Bank under the Instrument of Hypothecation of Vehicle. However, there is no detailed description or registration number of the said hypothecated vehicle. Therefore, the relief in terms of hypothecated vehicle cannot be granted.

¶33

10 The Applicant Bank has claimed other charges viz. - Typing, Notice and Xerox expenses of Rs.15,000/-, which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.14,04,673/- is reduced to Rs.13,89,673/-.

(OA No.1002/2022)

Page 4 of 5

[ANIL]

11 Considering the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple) for all the loan facilities, it would be just and reasonable.

¶38

12 Hence, I pass the following order: -

¶39

ORDER

¶40

(A) Original Application No.1002/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶41

(B) Defendant Nos.1&2 either jointly or severally shall pay to the Applicant Bank an aggregate sum of Rs.13,89,673/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Three only) with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e.10.03.2017 till payment /realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶42

¶43

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

¶44

Sd/(Dilip G. Murumkar) Place: Pune Presiding Officer, Date: 03.08.2024 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶45

(OA No.1002/2022)

¶46

Page 5 of 5

¶47

[ANIL]

Bank of Baroda v. Vijay Zankjar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Vijay Zankjar

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

Union Bank of India versus W. R. Metal Engg and Research Center and W. R. Infotech Prop Shri. Rohan Balasaheb Waghmare

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S. Mahesh Patil and Company

Bank of India versus M/s Medhekar Foods And Beverages Industry

Uco Bank versus Ranjit Narute

State Bank of India versus Sanjay Shinde

Federal Bank versus Amarshing Phadnaik