Allowed

Bank of India v. Raoso Patil

DRT16 Apr 2024OA/1156/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an ex-parte application by Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 15,54,450 plus future interest from a borrower and guarantor who failed to appear. The court ordered sale of mortgaged properties to secure dues.

What did the court decide?

Order directed respondents to pay Rs. 15,54,450 with future interest @9% p.a. and sanctioned sale of mortgaged properties to recover dues subject to first charge by Defendant No.3.

Bank of India versus Raoso Patil — Landlord and Tenant | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 28.07.2018 Registered on: 17.12.2022 Decided on: 16.04.2024 Duration: Y M D 05 08 18

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 1156/2022.

¶3

Bank of India,

¶4

A Bank 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 – 400051 and Branch office at Post Kavathe Mahankal, Taluka Kavathe Mahankal, District Sangli 416405.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Raoso Sagonda Patil, Age Adult, Occ. Agriculture, R/o : A/P Hulagabali Majari, Ramavadi, Taluka Athani, District Belgaum 591304.

¶8

Shri Mahankali Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Maharahtra

(OA No. 1156/2022)

Page 1 of 8

Sanap

Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 having registered office At Post Kavathe Mahankal, Taluka Kavathe Mahankal, District Sangli 416405. 3. Sangli District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., Incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Maharahtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 having registered office at – SDCC HO, Pushpraj Chowk, Sangli 416416. … Defendants

¶13

APPEARANCES

¶14

For the Applicant Advocate Satyen Jagtap. For the Defendants Ex parte.

¶15

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.15,54,449=58

¶16

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 16^th April, 2024)

¶17

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of sum of Rs.15,54,449=58 by rounding Rs.15,54,450/together with future interest thereon @13.45% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendant Nos.1 and 2 either jointly or severally.

¶18

Brief facts of the application are as under :

(OA No. 1156/2022)

Page 2 of 8

Sanap

Defendant No. 1 is a Borrower and defendant No.2 is a guarantor. Defendant No.3 is joined in this Application as the necessary party as defendant No.2 has created first charge by way of mortgage on the properties mortgaged to the applicant Bank by way of second charge. No relief has been claimed against defendant No.3.

¶23

Defendant No. 2 is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Sugar and avails services of harvesting and transport contractors in every crushing season for Harvesting and Transportation of Sugarcane from the fields to the sugar Mill. Defendant No.2 was availing financial facility for the above purpose from the applicant since Crushing season 2010-2011.

¶24

Defendant No.2 proposed to disburse loans / advances to 282 Truck/Tractor Operators/Bullock Carts operators, therefore, approached the applicant Bank with Resolution dated 25.05.2013 and letter dated 18.07.2013 requesting to grant loan of Rs.2800.00 Lakhs to the harvester and transport contractors on its default guarantee to the said advance. Accordingly, the applicant Bank sanctioned aggregate credit/demand loan facility of Rs.2520.00 Lakhs

(OA No. 1156/2022)

Page 3 of 8

Sanap

to 282 borrowers vide Sanction Letter dated 19.08.2013.

¶29

Thereafter, defendant No.2 vide Resolution dated 12.09.2013 with letter dated 17.09.2013 requested for additional loan of Rs.360.00 Lakhs to the harvester and transport contractors on its default guarantee to the said advance. Accordingly, the applicant Bank sanctioned additional loan facility of Rs.360.00 Lakhs i.e. aggregated credit/demand loan facility of Rs.2880.00 Lakhs to 282 borrowers vide Sanction Letter dated 30.10.2013.

¶30

It is further contended by the applicant Bank that at the instance of defendant No.2, as per the loan application of defendant No.1, the applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed the Demand Loan of Rs.9,00,000/- to defendant No.1. In order to secure the aforesaid Demand Loan, defendant Nos.1 and 2 executed necessary loan and security documents. Defendant No.2 has created second charge on the properties Gat Nos. 1456 to 1464, 1466, 1468A, 1469 to 1472, 1474 to 1479, 1483 to 1493, 70 and 72 situated at Kavathe Mahankal, Taluka Kavathe Mahankal, District Sangli by executing registered Mortgage deed dated 24.01.2011. Subsequently, defendant No.2 created further

(OA No. 1156/2022)

Page 4 of 8

Sanap

charge on the mortgaged land on 24.08.2011, 25.10.2011, 05.11.2012, 10.09.2013, 21.11.2013.

¶35

Thereafter, as per representation dated 31.03.2015 and 10.07.2015 by defendant No.2, the applicant Bank restructured Demand Loan of Rs.9,00,000/- to Term Loan of Rs.10,95,606/-. Defendant No.1 also executed Letter of Acknowledgement of Debts/Securities dated 31.07.2015.

¶36

The applicant Bank contended that defendant Nos.1 and 2 committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Therefore, on 12.07.2018, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to defendant Nos.1 and 2. Despite service of Notice, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank.

¶37

Hence, this application is filed.

¶38

The defendant failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 09.02.2024 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶39

The applicant has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit 6) of Mr. Shivaji Bhardwaj, Branch Manager of the applicant Bank which supports the case of the applicant Bank

(OA No. 1156/2022)

Page 5 of 8

Sanap

elucidated in the application.

¶44

The applicant Bank has also produced list of documents thereby adducing in evidence the original loan transaction and security documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1/1 to AW-1/25 which corroborate the case of the applicant Bank.

¶45

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

¶46

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.

¶47

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @13.45% per annum. However, taking into consideration the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple) it would be just and reasonable.

¶48

Hence, I pass the following order.

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(A) Original Application No. 1156/2022 is allowed with costs against defendant Nos.1 and 2.

¶51

(B) Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 either jointly or severally

(OA No. 1156/2022)

Page 6 of 8

Sanap

shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.15,54,450/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Four Hundred Fifty only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 28.07.2018 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶56

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the mortgage of Gat Nos. 1456 to 1464, 1466, 1468A, 1469 to 1472, 1474 to 1479, 1483 to 1493, 70 and 72 situated at Kavathe Mahankal, Taluka Kavathe Mahankal, District Sangli, more particularly described in the Para No.5.11 of the Original Application, subject to first charge of defendant No.3.

¶57

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged properties to recover its dues, subject to first charge of defendant No.3.

¶58

(E) The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant Bank and defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

(OA No. 1156/2022)

Page 7 of 8

Sanap

(F) No order in respect of defendant No.3 as no relief

¶63

has been claimed against defendant No.3.

¶64

Sd/( Dilip G. Murumkar ) Place : Pune Presiding Officer, Date : 16.04.2024 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶65

(OA No. 1156/2022)

¶66

Page 8 of 8

¶67

Sanap

Bank of India v. Raoso Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Raoso Patil

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

Icici Bank Limited versus Aniket

Bank of Maharashtra versus Yashraj Bakers Prop. Mr. Mahendra Kishor Bhosale

Mr Amjad Abdul Rahim Shaikh versus the Muslim Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Bank of India versus Niranjan Shinde

Bank of Maharashtra versus Bharat

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