Allowed

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

DRT17 Apr 2024OA/1035/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues totaling approximately Rs. 62.91 lakh with future interest, noting the defendant's default and absence. Recovery via hypothecated assets was denied due to lack of specific description.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.62,91,535/- with future interest; issuance of Recovery Certificate. Relief on hypothecated assets denied.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Anna Mahadik Services Station… — Specific Performance | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on : 18.08.2022 Registered on : 11.11.2022 Decided on : 17.04.2024 Duration : Y M D 01 08 00

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 1035/2022.

¶3

State Bank of India,

¶4

A Banking Company constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and having its Corporate Office at State Bank Bhavan, Nariman Point, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai 400021 and its branch at – State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Office No. 101 & 102, First Floor, Next Gen Avenue, Bahiratwadi, Behind ICC Trade, Tower, Off. Senapati Bapat Road, Pune 411016.

¶5

.. Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s. Anna Mahadik Service Station, Proprietor Mr. Dhanaji Shahaji Chopade, Gat No. 504, Milkat No. 783, Sahajpur Phata, Pune Solapur Road, Taluka Daund, District Pune 412202. Also at :-

¶8

Mr. Dhanaji Shahaji Chopade (Guarator), 303, A/P Kavhe, Madha, Solapur 413208.

.. Defendant

(OA No. 1035/2022)

Page 1 of 5

Sanap

APPEARANCES

For Applicant Advocate For Defendants Ex parte.

¶15

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.62,91,535/-

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

(Delivered on 17^th April, 2024)

¶18

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.62,91,535/- together with future interest @8.70% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendant.

¶19

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶20

As per the loan application dated 11.08.2021 of the defendant, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Cash Credit Edfs (BPCL Petroleum Division) limit for an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to the defendant vide Sanction Letter dated 13.09.2021. The defendant accepted the terms and conditions of the said Sanction Letter.

¶21

In order to secure the Cash Credit facility, the defendant executed Letter of Arrangement, Agreement of Loan -cum-Hypothecation, Guarantee Agreement, Undertaking, Consent Clause by borrower and Guarantor, Agreement by the

(OA No. 1035/2022)

Page 2 of 5

Sanap

dealer under Electronic Dealer Financing Scheme and Form of Agreement, in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶26

The applicant Bank contended that the defendant committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Therefore, on 30.06.2022, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendant. Despite service of Notice, the defendant failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank.

¶27

Hence, this application is filed.

¶28

The defendant failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 12.02.2024 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶29

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Sameer Borvandkar, Chief Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1 to AW-19 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶30

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

(OA No. 1035/2022)

Page 3 of 5

Sanap

Since the defendant 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.

¶35

The applicant Bank has claimed relief in respect of hypothecated assets. However, there is no detailed description with respect to the hypothecated assets, therefore, the relief in terms of hypothecated assets cannot be granted.

¶36

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(A) Original Application No. 1035/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶39

(B) The defendant shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.62,91,535/- (Rupees Sixty Two Lakhs Ninety One Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Five only) along with future interest @8.70% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 18.08.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

(OA No. 1035/2022)

Page 4 of 5

Sanap

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

¶45

Place : Pune Date : 17.04.2024

¶46

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

¶47

(OA No. 1035/2022)

¶48

Page 5 of 5

¶49

Sanap

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus Bharat

Bank of India versus Raoso Patil

Bank of India versus Niranjan Shinde

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

The Cosmos Co. Operative Bank Limited versus HolyWoodAcademy

Bank of India versus Nandkumar Rajani