Allowed

State Bank of India v. Santosh Mahadev Rathod

DRT13 Jun 2024OA/114/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by State Bank of India under Section 19 of the RDBFI Act, 1993 against the borrower who failed to appear. The court approved the uncontroverted claim for the principal sum along with interest and directed the issuance of a recovery certificate against the mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Allowed Original Application No.114/2023; ordered payment of Rs. 24,13,732/- with 10% p.a. interest; directed issuance of recovery certificate against mortgaged property.

State Bank of India versus Santosh Mahadev Rathod — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on : 15.05.2023 Registered on : 04.10.2023 Decided on : 13.06.2024 Duration : Ys. Ms. Ds. 01 00 28

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

Original Application No.114/2023 Total Claim Amount : 24,13,732/-.

¶4

STATE BANK OF INDIA,

¶5

State Bank of India with effect from 1^st April, 2019 in terms Gazette of India no. GSR. No. 2E dated 2nd January 2019 issued by ministry of Finance Govt. India. body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970, having its Head Office at Mandvi, Baroda Gujarat & having one of its Branch at SARB, Dist. Aurangabad. Through its City Case Officer Mr. Kavita Vasudeo Khalse, Age: 38 Years, Occ.: Service, as a Branch Manager, R/o. Aurangabad.

¶6

...APPLICANT

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Santosh Mahadev Rathod, Age.: Major, Occ: Business, R/o. Trimbak Ramchandra Reddy, Kudumbale Nagar, Bank Colony, Nilanga, Dist. Latur (Borrower) AND Survey No.8/B, Plot No.30, Gram Panchayat Milkat No.1390/30, Mouje Dapaka Nilanga, Dist. Latur.

¶9

... DEFENDANT

¶10

APPEARANCES For the Applicant Mr. A.L. Muley – Advocate For Defendant None (Ex-parte)

¶11

Page 1 of 05

¶12

(OA No.114/2023)

¶13

Shri Vimal Gupta Presiding Officer

¶14

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 13.06.2024

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

1] This is an application under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institution Act,1993(The 1993 Act for Short)/Recovery of Debts And Bankruptcy Act 1993 for recovery of due in the sum of Rs.24,13,732/- with future interest @ 10.25% p.a. from 14.04.2022 till its realization and, in default, for sale of mortgaged/ hypothecated properties, as described in the Original Application.

¶17

2] It is pleaded that defendant is borrower. After execution of relevant documents in respect of the properties mentioned in Schedule – A and B I.E.

¶18

A] All the piece and parcel of Survey No. 8/B, Plot no. 30 Gram Panchyat Milkat no. 190/30 situated at Mouje Dapaka Tq. Nilanga Dist. Latur. in the name of Defendant No. 1 i.e. Santosh Mahadev Rathod is bounded as under :- Towards East: - 30 ft road. Towards West: Property no. 1390/30 Towards South: 20 ft Road Towards North: - Plot no. 20.

¶19

of the original application and claim affidavit by defendant in favour of applicant bank to secure the loan amount and on accepting terms and conditions as to repayment with interest thereon, applicant bank sanctioned and disbursed following loan to the defendant :-

¶20

Particulars	Loan amount	Sanctioned on
1 Home Loan	Rs.22,66,869/-	11.10.2017

¶21

Page 2 of 05

¶22

(OA No.114/2023)

¶23

3] The defendant failed to repay the loan amount as agreed therefore, the loan account classified into NPA on 18.03.2023 and the applicant bank issued legal demand notice to defendants on 13.04.2022 for total outstanding amount of Rs.22,49,300/- with agreed interest, to which the defendants did not pay any response and therefore, the bank has filed the present Original Application for recovery of the amount, as aforesaid.

¶24

4] The defendant despite service on him did not choose to enter appearance either personally or through his Advocate. Hence, defendant has failed to show cause as to why reliefs prayed for should not be granted.

¶25

5] The applicant bank has filed claim affidavit (Exhibit-15) of Mrs. Kavita Vasudeo Khalse, along with original documents to corroborate and prove its claim as given in the Original Application thereby adducing in evidence the original documents at Sr.No.AW-1 to AW-12 which are admitted in evidence, read, recorded and exhibited.

¶26

6] I have scrutinized and examined the allegations made in the Original Application and analyzed the evidence adduced by the applicant in support of it’s claim. The defendants chose not to appear and contest the claim made by the applicant. The claim of the applicant thus goes uncontroverted and unrebutted.

¶27

7] Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant-bank.

¶28

8] I have scrutinized and examined the averments made in the Ori. Application and analyzed the evidence adduced by the applicant in support of its claim. The claim of the applicant foes uncontroverted and

¶29

Page 3 of 05

¶30

(OA No.114/2023)

¶31

unrebutted and stands admitted as no written statement /reply to show cause is filed.

¶32

9] Based on the pleading claim affidavit, original documents, oral submission by the counsel of the applicant bank, the applicant bank has corroborated and proved its claim, as mentioned in the Original Application.

¶33

10] In view of the observations made hereinabove, the Original Application filed by the applicants deserves to be granted, I have to grant reasonable interest from the date of filing of the OA till realization Hence, I Pass the following orders :-

¶34

ORDER

¶35

A. Original Application No. 114/2017 is allowed with costs.

¶36

B. Defendant is liable to pay the total sum of Rs. Rs.24,13,732/- (Rupees Twenty-Four Lakhs ThirteenThousand Seven-Hundred Thirty-Two only) with future interest @ 10 % p.a. simple from the date of order till its realization.

¶37

C. Amount recovered, if any, by applicant-bank during pendency of the Original Application shall be deducted from such calculated amount before the Recovery Officer and demand notice shall be issued for balance amount.

¶38

D. The applicant-bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged / hypothecated properties, as described in the Schedule-A of the Original Application i.e.

¶39

Page 4 of 05

¶40

(OA No.114/2023)

¶41

A] All the piece and parcel of Survey no. 8/B, Plot no. 30 Gram Panchyat Milkat no. 190/30 situated at Mouje Dapaka Tq. Nilanga Dist. Latur. in the name of Defendant No. 1 i.e. Santosh Mahadev Rathod is bounded as under :- Towards East: - 30 ft road. Towards West: Property no. 1390/30 Towards South: 20 ft Road Towards North: - Plot no. 20.

¶42

E. Issue recovery certificate accordingly against defendant.

¶43

F. The Registrar is directed to send the copy of judgment and recovery certificate to the applicant-bank and the defendants.

¶44

G. Consign the file to the Record Room and orders be uploaded on official web-site.

¶45

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad.

¶46

Page 5 of 05

¶47

(OA No.114/2023)

State Bank of India v. Santosh Mahadev Rathod

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Santosh Mahadev Rathod

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 Mr. Ramchandra Marotirao Hendre (Deceased)

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Shailesh Krishi Seva Kendra

Bank of Maharashtra versus Krishna Babanrao Pere

Bank of Baroda versus Summayya Fatema Liyaqat

Bank of Baroda versus Jyotideep and Sons Logistics

Aasawa Brothers Corporate Avenue versus Union Bank of India