Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Dada Pawar

DRT20 Aug 2024OA/1163/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune, allowed an original application filed by Bank of Maharashtra for recovery of a loan amount of Rs. 66,64,001/- along with future interest from the borrowers and two guarantors. The court modified the requested future interest rate to 9% p.a. and directed realization through sale of mortgaged land.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 66,64,001/- with future interest at 9% p.a.; mortgage property secured; applicant entitled to sell property to recover dues and issue recovery certificate.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Dada Pawar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on : 31.07.2021 Registered on : 20.12.2022 Decided on : 20.08.2024 Duration : Y M D 03 00 20

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 1163/2022.

¶3

Bank of Maharashtra, A Banking Company Incorporated under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its registered office at “Lokmangal”, 1501, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411005 and one of its branch office at Sansar, Taluka Indapur, District Pune 413 104.

¶4

.. Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1 Mr. Dada Dhondiba Pawar, Age 57 years, Occ. Agriculturist, R/at : Shindewadi, Post Kazad, Taluka Indapur, District Pune 413 104.

¶7

2 Mr. Bapu Dada Pawar, Age 31 years, Occ. Agriculturist, R/at : Shindewadi, Post Kazad, Taluka Indapur, District Pune 413 104.

(OA No. 1163/2022)

Page 1 of 5

Sanap

3 Mr. Ramdas Dada Pawar, Age 29 years, Occ. Agriculturist, R/at : Shindewadi, Post Kazad, Taluka .. Defendants

¶12

Indapur, District Pune 413 104.

¶13

APPEARANCES

¶14

For Applicant Advocate Ashok Tamboli. For Defendants Ex parte.

¶15

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.66,64,001/-

¶16

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 20^th August, 2024)

¶17

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.66,64,001/- together with future interest @11.65 & 12.65% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶18

Brief facts of the application are as under :

¶19

As per the loan application of defendant No.1, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Term Loan of Rs.29,50,000/- and MKCC facility of Rs.15,00,000/- to defendant No.1 vide Sanction Letter dated 17.07.2014. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 stood guarantors for the repayment of loan availed by defendant No.1.

¶20

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the

(OA No. 1163/2022)

Page 2 of 5

Sanap

defendants executed necessary loan and security documents along with deed of mortgage of the land admeasuring 2.28 Ha bearing Gat No. 420/6 situated at village Shindewadi, Taluka Indapur, District Pune, in favour of the applicant Bank. The defendants have also executed Balance and Security Confirmation Letters from time to time and lastly on 20.07.2020.

¶25

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Therefore, on 30.09.2018, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendants. Despite service of Notice, the defendants failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank.

¶26

Hence, this application is filed.

¶27

The defendant failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 01.05.2024 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶28

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Pankaj Kumar Shrivastava, Branch Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1 to AW-23 along

(OA No. 1163/2022)

Page 3 of 5

Sanap

with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶33

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

¶34

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.

¶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

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @11.65% and 12.65% per annum. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶37

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(A) Original Application No.1163/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶40

(B) Defendant Nos.1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.66,64,001/- (Rs. Sixty

(OA No. 1163/2022)

Page 4 of 5

Sanap

Six Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand One only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 31.07.2021 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶45

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage of land Gat No. 420/6 admeasuring 2.28 Ha situated at village Shindewadi, Taluka Indapur, District Pune, more particularly described in the Para Nos.5.6 and 5.8 of the Original Application.

¶46

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

¶47

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶48

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

¶49

Sd/(Dilip G Murumkar) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 20.08.2024 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶50

(OA No. 1163/2022)

¶51

Page 5 of 5

¶52

Sanap

Bank of Maharashtra v. Dada Pawar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Dada Pawar

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

Canara Bank versus Digambar Ghayal

Bank of India versus Arjun Khade

Bank of India versus Riyaz Patkan

Saraswat Cooperative Bank Limited versus Idfc First Bank Ltd.

Hdfc Bank versus Mr. Vitthal Shankar Ranavade, Prop. Laxmi Enterprises

Icici Bank Limited versus Sachin Godambe