Allowed

Bank of India v. Shashikant Ghadge

DRT22 Mar 2024OA/1090/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal at Pune allowed an application filed by Bank of India for recovery ofRs.17,66,368. The court adjudicated a reduced rate of future interest at 9% and granted relief by way of a Recovery Certificate and sale of mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.17,66,368 with future interest at 9% p.a.; power to sell mortgaged immovable properties; directive to issue Recovery Certificate.

Bank of India versus Shashikant Ghadge — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 20.03.2019 Registered on: 09.12.2022 Decided on: 22.03.2024 Duration: Y M D 5 0 2

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.1090/2022

¶3

Bank of India,

¶4

A body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) of 1970, having its Head Office at- Star House, C-5, “G” Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 and one of its Branch identified as Shalgaon, having address at: Shalgaon, Taluka Kadegaon, District-Sangli-415 304.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Shashikant Laxman Ghadge, Age-Adult, Occupation-Agriculturist, Residing at: A/p. Raigaon, TalukaKadegaon, District-Sangli, Maharashtra415 304.

¶8

Mr. Ramchandra Yashu Mulik, Age-Adult, Occupation-Agriculturist, Residing at: A/p. Raigaon, TalukaKadegaon, District-Sangli, Maharashtra415 304.

(OA No.1090/2022)

Page 1 of 10

[ npb ]

Mr. Sampatrao Deshmukh Sahakari Pani Puravtha Sanstha Maryadit (SDSPPSM), Having its registered address at-Raigaon, TalukaKadegaon, DistrictSangli, Maharashtra-415 304. 4. Cane Agro Energy (India) Ltd. A Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office at Raigaon, PostHingangaon (Bk), Taluka-Kadegaon, District-Sangli-415 304. … Defendants APPEARANCES For the Applicant Mr. Parikshit P. Parab - Advocate For Defendant Nos.1 to 4 Ex parte

¶13

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.17,66,368.29Ps.

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

(Delivered on 22^nd March, 2024)

¶16

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of aggregate sum of Rs.17,66,368.29Ps. i.e. Rs.3,59,383.46Ps. 3,80,014.53Ps. in respect of KCC Loan account; Rs.12,95,225.63Ps. in respect of Term Loan-I account and Rs.91,128.13Ps. in respect of Term Loan-II account together with future interest @12.45% p.a. with half yearly rests thereon from the date of filing this Application i.e. 20^th March, 2019 till repayment/realization of entire

(OA No.1090/2022)

Page 2 of 10

[ npb ]

dues from defendant Nos.1 to 4.

¶21

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶22

Defendant No.1 is the principal borrower and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the guarantors to loan facilities availed by defendant No.1 from the applicant Bank.

¶23

The applicant Bank contended that defendant No.4 is a Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacturing of sugar and its allied by-products. The defendant No.4 had proposed to implement an drought prone area based scheme for individual member farmers for drip irrigations system. Defendant No.4 had constituted defendant No.3 Society for bringing dry/unproductive land of the members/farmers under drip irrigation by lifting irrigation water from Krishna River and stored in Hingangaon (Bk) MI tank. The defendant No.4 had obtained requisite permissions and sanctions from Irrigation Department, Government of Maharashtra. Defendant No.4 with the assistance of defendant No.3 Society have identified a portion of land admeasuring 2000 Hectors which includes the land admeasuring 440 Hectors in Village Raigaon and 364 Hectors in Village Shalgaon. The

(OA No.1090/2022)

Page 3 of 10

[ npb ]

defendant Nos.3 and 4 had conjoined with 324 farmers within the Village-Raigaon and Shalgaon for raising finance to implement drip irrigation scheme.

¶28

The defendant No.3 at the behest and instruction of defendant No.4 had applied to the applicant Bank for grant of an aggregate Credit Limits of Rs.50,00,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Crores only) in principle, for disbursing the same to total 324 farmers who are the members of the defendant No.3 Society as well as defendant No.4 Company.

¶29

Accordingly, on 24^th January, 2013 the applicant Bank sanctioned aggregate credit facility of Rs.32,56,14,900/- in principle. The said amount was reserved for disbursement to individual beneficiary farmers (324 Nos.) upon each of them independently making Application for Loan as per their eligibility.

¶30

The applicant Bank contended that defendant No.3 Society had signed and executed Common Guarantee Agreement on 10^th April, 2013 thereby securing an aggregate amount of Rs.50 Crores sanctioned on 24^th January, 2013 which also includes the above stated sanctioned limit of Rs.32,56,14,900/-.

(OA No.1090/2022)

Page 4 of 10

[ npb ]

In addition to Common Guarantee Agreement dated 10^th April, 2013 defendant No.3 Society has also created Mortgage charge in favour of the applicant Bank over the immovable properties owned by defendant No.3, more particularly mentioned in paragraph No.5(k) of the Original Application.

¶35

Also, on 10^th March, 2013 defendant No.4 has signed and executed an Undertaking in favour of applicant Bank and assured to complete the area based scheme of drip irrigation for Village Raigaon & Shalgaon. Defendant No.4 being an indemnifier has also executed an Undertaking dated 10^th March, 2013 for repayment of loan account of the 324 farmers which inter-alia includes the defendant No.1 being one of the beneficiaries amongst 324 farmers.

¶36

The applicant Bank further contended that pursuant to sanction of Rs.32,56,14,900/- in principle, defendant No.1 being one of the beneficiaries amongst 324 farmers, had applied to the applicant Bank for grant of an aggregate Credit Limit of Rs.10,69,000/- which includes (1) KCCKisan Cash Credit facility of Rs.2,67,000/-; (2) Term Loan-I for Drip Irrigation of Rs.7,52,000/- and (3) Term Loan-II

(OA No.1090/2022)

Page 5 of 10

[ npb ]

(Kisan Tatkal Loan) of Rs.50,000/-. On 25^th March, 2013 the applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed the said Credit Limit of Rs.10,69,000/- with interest @10.25% with half yearly rests for KCC-Kisan Cash Credit facility and @14.75% p.a. with half yearly rests for Term Loan-I & II facilities. Defendant No.2 stood as guarantor. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 signed and executed loan transaction and security documents more particularly mentioned in paragraph No.5(p) of the Original Application.

¶41

The applicant Bank further contended that after availing the credit facilities, the loan account of defendant No.1 and other 323 H&T Contractors became irregular and was classified as Non-Performing Asset on 31^st December, 2018.

¶42

Therefore, the applicant Bank issued Demand Notice dated 04^th March, 2019 to defendant Nos.1 to 3 calling upon them to liquidate the entire outstanding and to regularize the loan account. However, defendants have not made the repayment of outstanding loan amount.

¶43

The applicant Bank contended that defendant No.1 has signed and executed separate Acknowledgement of Debts/Securities on 23^rd March, 2016 thereby confirming

(OA No.1090/2022)

Page 6 of 10

[ npb ]

the debit balance in the loan account.

¶48

The applicant Bank further contended that it has also sent Notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 08^th January, 2019.

¶49

Despite issuance of the aforesaid Notices, defendants did not repay the outstanding.

¶50

Hence, this application is filed.

¶51

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against them vide order dated 02^nd February, 2024 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶52

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Avinash Dnyandeo Bhise, Branch Head (Manager) which supports the case of the applicant Bank elucidated in the application.

¶53

The applicant Bank has produced on record the original loan transaction documents (Sr.Nos.AW-1 to AW-19) which corroborate the case of the applicant Bank.

¶54

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

(OA No.1090/2022)

Page 7 of 10

[ npb ]

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.

¶59

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.

¶60

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @12.45% p.a. with half yearly rests. However, considering facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% (simple) for all loan accounts, it would be just and reasonable.

¶61

Hence, I pass the following order:-

¶62

ORDER

¶63

(A) Original Application No.1090/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶64

(B) Defendant Nos.1 to 4 shall either jointly or severally pay to the applicant Bank towards the aggregate sum of Rs.17,66,368/(Rupees

(OA No.1090/2022)

Page 8 of 10

[ npb ]

Seventeen Lakhs Sixty-Six Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty-Eight only) with future interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 20^th March, 2019 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶69

¶70

All that piece and parcel of Land bearing S.No.1346/1, admeasuring 00H 36R of Village Hingangaon (Bk), Taluka Kadegaon, District Sangli, along with building and other structure and machinery, fixtures, fittings thereon and

¶71

All that piece and parcel of Land bearing S.No.59 admeasuring 01H 85R of Village Shalgaon, Taluka Kadegaon, District Sangli along with building and other structure and machinery, fixtures, fittings thereon.

¶72

more particularly mentioned in paragraph

(OA No.1090/2022)

Page 9 of 10

[ npb ]

No.5(k) of the Original Application.

¶77

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged properties to recover its dues.

¶78

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶79

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

¶80

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

¶81

Place : Pune Date : 22.03.2024

¶82

(OA No.1090/2022)

¶83

Page 10 of 10

¶84

[ npb ]

Bank of India v. Shashikant Ghadge

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Shashikant Ghadge

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

Union Bank of India versus Ravindra

Yes Bank versus Gopichand D. Kate

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) versus Vaishali Dumbare

Rbl Bank Limited versus Janashree Diagnostic Centre Sanchalit Vedh Dignostic Research Centre Prop Mr.Shrenik Jangonda Patil

Yes Bank versus Kiran Maruti Ghule

Punjab National Bank versus Vishal Shinde