Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 13,46,613 along with future interest from the defaulting borrower and two guarantors who failed to appear and contest the application.
Recovery of Rs. 13,46,613 plus future interest at 9% per annum from 29.08.2018 and issue of Recovery Certificate.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Presented on: 29.08.2018 Registered on: 14.12.2022 Decided on: 06.04.2024 Duration: Y M D 05 07 07
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE
(Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 1113/2022.
Bank of India,
A Bank Constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 having its Head Office at Star House, C-5, G Block, BandraKurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 and Branch office at Kurul, Taluka Mohol, District Solapur 413213.
… Applicant
Versus
(OA No. 1113/2022)
Page 1 of 7
Sanap
APPEARANCES
For the Applicant Advocate Satyen Jagtap. For the Defendants Ex parte.
TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.13,46,612=65
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 06th April, 2024)
Defendant No. 1 is Principal Borrower and is a transport contractor and carries his activities of transportation.
Defendant No. 2 is a Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana registered as per the provisions of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. Defendant No. 2 is engaged in the
(OA No. 1113/2022)
Page 2 of 7
Sanap
business of manufacturing of Sugar and avail services of Harvesting and Transport contractors owning trucks/tractors/bullock carts in every crushing season for Harvesting and Transportation of Sugarcane from the fields of agriculturists to the premises of the karkhana at Takli Sikandar, Taluka Mohol, District Solapur.
Karmavir Kai. Bhimrao Mahadik Sarva Seva Sangha which is a Sangh of contractors engaged in supplying services and sugarcane chopping services, requested defendant No. 2 to give the contract of transportation of sugarcane to its members for crushing season 2015-16 and the said sangh vide its board resolution bearing No. 3 authorized its Chairman and Secretary to sign the necessary documents of bank for the purpose of finance from the applicant Bank for the purpose of chopping and transportation of sugarcane to the defendant No. 2 for providing advance payment to H & T Contractors.
As per the request of said Karmaveer Kai. Bhimrao Mahadik Sarva Seva Sangh defendant No. 2 resolved in its meeting for furnishing guarantee for the repayment of the loan advanced/to be advanced to the contractors and for
(OA No. 1113/2022)
Page 3 of 7
Sanap
the said purpose giving authority to its Vice Chairman, Director and Executive Director sign the relevant documents and papers for availing the loan facilities from the applicant Bank.
Accordingly, defendant No. 2 made an application to the applicant Bank requesting to grant loan of Rs.33.92 Crore for crushing season 2015-16 to Kai. Bhimrao Mahadik Sarva Seva Sangh and also they were in need of financial assistance for transportation machinery.
The applicant Bank considered the request of defendant No. 2 and Karmaveer Kai. Bhimrao Mahadik Sarva Seva Sangh and sanctioned aggregate/cumulative clean demand loan limit of Rs.24.96 Crore.
At that instance defendant No. 1 and 2 approached the applicant Bank for financial assistance for contract work of chopping & transportation of sugarcane and also agreed to repay the said loan personally in case defendant No. 2 fails to repay the same in time. After due consideration the applicant Bank on 02.09.2015 sanctioned H & T Finance/ Demand loan of Rs.9,60,000/- to defendant No. 1. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 stood as Guarantors to the said loan
(OA No. 1113/2022)
Page 4 of 7
Sanap
facility availed by defendant No. 1.
Further, the defendant No. 1 executed necessary loan transaction and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank.
The applicant Bank contended that defendant No. 1 failed and neglected to regularize the said loan account and also failed to maintain the same. Therefore, the applicant Bank classified the loan account as Non-Performing Asset.
Thereafter, on 14.05.2018, the applicant Bank issued Legal Notice to the defendants and thereby demanded outstanding loan amounts together with interest. Despite service of Notice, defendants failed to repay the said amount.
Hence, this application is filed.
(OA No. 1113/2022)
Page 5 of 7
Sanap
thereby adducing in evidence the original loan transaction and security documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1/1 to AW-1/19 which corroborate the case of the applicant Bank.
ORDER
(A) Original Application No. 1113/2022 is allowed with costs.
(B) Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.13,46,613/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Six Hundred Thirteen only) along with
(OA No. 1113/2022)
Page 6 of 7
Sanap
future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 29.08.2018 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order. (C) Issue Recovery Certificate. (D) The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant Bank and defendants.
Sd/( Dilip G. Murumkar ) Place : Pune Presiding Officer, Date : 06.04.2024 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.
(OA No. 1113/2022)
Page 7 of 7
Sanap
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant bank is entitled to recovery of the outstanding loan amount with interest despite the default of the borrower and guarantors.
Whether the rate of future interest granted is reasonable and just in the present case.
Whether the defendants being absent in person, the evidence of the applicant bank can be accepted without contradiction.
Bank of India
Mr. Aasaram Eknath Dhaval
M/s. Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.
Mr. Eknath Shankar Dhaval
Dilip G Murumkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
