Allowed

Bank of India v. Nandkumar Rajani

DRT18 Apr 2024OA/1021/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Bank of India for recovery of loan dues totaling over Rs.1.20 crore, including future interest, against three defaulting borrowers. The application was decided ex parte upon defendants' failure to appear, granting relief secured by mortgage and hypothecation.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of principal sums and future interest granted against Defendants 1, 2, and 3; Recovery Certificate issued; Right to sell mortgaged/hypothecated properties confirmed.

Bank of India versus Nandkumar Rajani — Consumer Protection | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 30.08.2022 Registered on: 10.11.2022 Decided on: 18.04.2024 Duration: Y M D 1 7 19

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.1021/2022

¶3

Bank of India,

¶4

A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 having its Head Office at “Star House”, C-5, G Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 and Branch Office amongst other places at N.G. Abdulpurkar Complex, Near Neela Nagar, Samrat Chowk, Solapur-413 002 known as Solapur Main Branch

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Nandkumar Khanchand Rajani, Age: 59 Years, Occupation: Business, Address: House No.42, Guru Nanak Nagar, Opposite Military Canteen, Solapur-413 003.

¶8

Mrs. Geeta Nandkumar Rajani, Age: 59 Years, Occupation: Business,

(OA No.1021/2022)

Page 1 of 9

[ npb ]

Address: House No.42, Guru Nanak Nagar, Opposite Military Canteen, Solapur-413 003.

¶13

Mr. Ajay Nandkumar Rajani, Age: 33 Years, Occupation: Business, Address: House No.42, Guru Nanak Nagar, Opposite Military Canteen, Solapur-413 003.

¶14

… Defendants

¶15

APPEARANCES

¶16

For the Applicant Mrs. Sanobar S. Irani - Advocate For Defendants Ex parte

¶17

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.1,20,37,716.08Ps.

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

(Delivered on 18^th April, 2024)

¶20

The Applicant Bank has filed the present Application for recovery of aggregate sum of Rs.1,20,37,716.08Ps. i.e. Rs.10,50,328.80Ps. in respect of Vehicle Loan account together with future interest @7.85% p.a. with monthly rests; Rs.21,15,303.12Ps. in respect of Home Loan account together with future interest @7.35% p.a. with monthly rests; Rs.85,96,229.22Ps. in respect of Loan against property account together with future interest @9.35% p.a. with monthly rests and Rs.2,75,854.94Ps. in respect of Personal Loan account together with future interest @8.25% p.a. with monthly rests thereon from 31^st August, 2022 till full

(OA No.1021/2022)

Page 2 of 9

[ npb ]

repayment/realization of entire dues from defendant Nos.1 to 3.

¶25

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶26

The defendant No.1 caries on business in partnership as Authorized Dealers of Tractors, under the name and style of `M/s. Laxmi Tractors’.

¶27

Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the borrowers in respect of various loan facilities granted to them by the applicant Bank. The defendant No.1 is also mortgagor for the credit facilities granted to defendant Nos.1 to 3 by the applicant Bank. As per the applications, the applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed the following credit facilities to

¶28

the defendants:

¶29

Sr. No.	Head	Amount	Date of Sanction	Rate Interest	of	Availed by
1.	Vehicle Loan facility	Rs.11,66,000/-	26.04.2018	@9% (floating)	p.a.	Defendant No.1
2.	Home Loan facility	Rs.19,66,000/-	04.06.2018	@8.40% with mon rests	p.a. thly	Defendant No.1
3.	Loan against property facility	Rs.76,62,000/-	15.06.2018	@10.50% with mon rests	p.a. thly	Defendant Nos.1 to 3
4.	Personal Loan facility	Rs.3,00,000/-	19.04.2020	@7.25% with mon rests	p.a. thly	Defendant No.1

(OA No.1021/2022)

Page 3 of 9

[ npb ]

In order to secure the credit facilities, the defendants executed loan transaction and necessary security documents. Further, defendant No.1 mortgaged the immovable property being Plot No.42 more particularly mentioned in the Second Schedule and hypothecated the Vehicle being New Toyota Innova Crysta GX STR Auto Car bearing Registration No.MH 13 CS 8855 more particularly mentioned in the First Schedule and Second Schedule of the Original Application.

¶34

It is contended that defendants acknowledged the liability in all the accounts from time to time by executing letter of Acknowledgement of Debt and Security. It is further contended that after availing and utilizing credit facilities, defendants failed to repay the loan amounts as per terms of sanction. Hence, the loan accounts were classified as Non-Performing Asset on 01^st May, 2021 as per the Reserve Bank of India norms.

¶35

Thereafter, on 23^rd July, 2022 the applicant Bank through its Advocate issued Legal Notice to defendants calling upon them to pay the entire outstanding with interest. Despite service of Notice, defendants failed and

(OA No.1021/2022)

Page 4 of 9

[ npb ]

neglected to comply with the demand in the said Notice. 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 13^th February, 2024 passed below the application (Exhibit-1).

¶41

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Shri Birendra Kumar Yadav, Chief Manager and Branch Manager, which supports the case of the applicant Bank elucidated in the application.

¶42

The applicant Bank has produced on record the original loan transaction documents (Sr.Nos.AW-1/1 to AW-1/53) which corroborate the case of the applicant Bank.

¶43

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

¶44

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.

(OA No.1021/2022)

Page 5 of 9

[ npb ]

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @9.35% p.a. with monthly rests in respect of Loan against Property Account. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9%p.a. (simple) for Loan against Property Account, it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶49

Hence, I pass the following order:-

¶50

ORDER

¶51

(A) Original Application No.1021/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶52

(B) Defendant No.1 shall pay to the applicant Bank towards Vehicle Loan account the sum of Rs.10,50,329/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Fifty Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty-Nine only) with future interest @7.85% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 30^th August, 2022 till full realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶53

(C) Defendant No.1 shall pay to the applicant Bank towards Home Loan Account the sum of Rs.21,15,303/- (Rupees Twenty-One Lakhs Fifteen

(OA No.1021/2022)

Page 6 of 9

[ npb ]

Thousand Three Hundred and Three only) with future interest @7.35% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 30^th August, 2022 till full realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶58

(D) Defendant Nos.1 to 3 shall either jointly or severally pay to the applicant Bank towards Loan against Property Account the sum of Rs.85,96,229/(Rupees Eighty-Five Lakhs Ninety-Six Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty-Nine only) with future interest @9% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 30^th August, 2022 till full realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶59

(E) Defendant No.1 shall pay to the applicant Bank towards Personal Loan account the sum of Rs.2,75,855/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy-Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty-Five only) with future interest @8.25% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 30^th August, 2022 till full realization of the amount mentioned in

(OA No.1021/2022)

Page 7 of 9

[ npb ]

this operative order.

¶64

(F) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting hypothecation of New Innova Car–Model Crysta GX STR Auto bearing Registration No.MH 13 CS 8855; Chassis No.MBJJA8EM700513265-0318, more particularly mentioned in the First Schedule of the Original Application.

¶65

(G) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage of immovable property being Plot No.42 admeasuring about 344.50 sq. meters, along with Double Storied Residential Building constructed thereon bearing Municipal House No.42 admeasuring about 344.20 sq. meters Built up area, situated at T.P. Scheme No.III, F.P. No.41, C.T.S. No.63/1F/42, Civil Lines, Gurunanak Nagar, Solapur-413 003, belonging to defendant No.1 Mr. Nandkumar Khanchand Rajani, more particularly mentioned in the Second Schedule of the Original Application.

¶66

(H) The applicant is entitled to sell the

(OA No.1021/2022)

Page 8 of 9

[ npb ]

hypothecated/mortgaged properties to recover its dues.

¶71

(I) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶72

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

¶73

Place : Pune Date : 18.04.2024

¶74

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

¶75

(OA No.1021/2022)

¶76

Page 9 of 9

¶77

[ npb ]

Bank of India v. Nandkumar Rajani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Nandkumar Rajani

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

Hdfc Bank versus Shree Gurukrupa Trading Company, Prop.Amol Gunwant Patil

The Cosmos Co. Operative Bank Limited versus HolyWoodAcademy

State Bank of India versus M/S. Anna Mahadik Services Station Prop. Mr. Dhanaji Shahaji Choipade

Raju Danial versus The Recovery Officer- 2, Drt Pune and others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Dattatray Kamathe

Canara Bank versus M/S Piyush Poly Print Prop Smt. Pushpawati Harichand Nahar (Deceased)