Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Balasaheb Yogiraj Sanap

DRT24 Apr 2024OA/128/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Bank of Maharashtra's application for recovery of Rs. 25.28 lakhs and interest from two defendants who defaulted on a vehicle loan. The Tribunal held the defendants liable as the claim was not rebutted and was filed within the limitation period, ordering them to pay the principal and future interest with costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 25,28,625 with 8% p.a. interest; entitlement to proceed against hypothecated vehicle and personal properties confirmed.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Balasaheb Yogiraj Sanap — Consumer Protection | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 21/08/2023 Registered on: 19/10/2023 Decided on: 24/04/2024 Duration: Y. M. D. 0 – 08 - 04

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, at Aurangabad

¶3

Original Application No. 128 of 2023

¶4

Claim : Recovery of Rs. 25,28,625/-

¶5

Bank of Maharashtra, a new Bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, a branch at CIDCO Branch, CIDCO Chowk, Aurangabad 431003 through its Authorized Signatory and Chief Manager Mr Raju s/o Vitthal Waman, age 42 Mobile No. 9970266432 email: years [email protected]

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

1 Mr Balasaheb Yogiraj Sanap, age 52 years occup. business R/o Flat No. 3, North View Apartment, Plot No. B 250/251, N1, CIDCO, Aurangabad 431003 Also at: C/o Kamalabai Subhash Dhakane, H.No. 305, Dhakane Colony, Nutan Vasahat, Jalna 431203 Mob. No. 9970654444 email: [email protected]

¶9

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 128/2023)

¶10

Page 1 of 7

¶11

2 Mr Surekha Balasaheb Sanap, age 47 yers occup. business R/o Flat No. 3, North View Apartment, Plot No. B 250/251, N 1, CIDCO, Aurangabad 431003

¶12

Also at: C/o Kamalabai Subhash Dhakane, H.No. 305, Dhakane Colony, Nutan Vasahat, Jalna 431203 Mob. No. 9049940067 email: [email protected]

¶13

…Defendants

¶14

Appearance :

¶15

For Applicant-bank : Mr. V. R. Patil, Adv. For Defendants Absent

¶16

Shri Vimal Gupta Presiding Officer Pronounced on: 24^th April 2024

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The applicant-bank has filed the present Original Application against defendants No.1 & 2 for recovery of sum of Rs. 25,28,625/- (Rs. twenty five lakhs twenty eight thousand six

¶19

hundred twenty five only) towards outstanding of loan amount

¶20

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 128/2023)

¶21

Page 2 of 7

¶22

availed by them, together with further contractual rate of interest till repayment/ realization, and, in default, for sale of mortgaged and hypothecated properties, as described in the Original Application.

¶23

Facts of the case, in short, are that defendants No.1 & 2 have obtained vehicle loan of Rs. 28,75,000/- for purchase of new Toyota Fortuner 4 X 4 from the applicant bank, vide sanction letter dated 27/11/2018, on execution of relevant documents to secure the loan amount, including Hypothecation Agreement dated 30/11/2018 in favour of applicant bank, as shown in Orig. Application and on acceptance of terms and conditions as to repayment alongwith interest @ 9.50% p.a. by 84 EMI of Rs. 46650/-, each. It is pleaded that the defendants have accordingly

¶24

Registered the said vehicle with the concerned RTO authority, Jalna, on 30/04/2019, vide Regn. No. MH-21-BF-0001 (FortunerStation Wagon-chassis No. MBJAA3GS000538121-1018-Engine

¶25

No. 1GDA249060). It is pleaded that however, the defendants

¶26

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 128/2023)

¶27

Page 3 of 7

¶28

could not follow the repayment programme and failed to repay it

¶29

as agreed and thereby the loan account classified as NPA on

¶30

31/07/2022 and the applicant therefore, issued legal demand notice on 20/01/2023, to which the defendants did not pay any response. It is further pleaded that in the meantime, the defendants have executed Balance and Security Confirmation Letter on 13/10/2021 and thereby acknowledged the amount due against them. Hence this Original Application, with prayer for the reliefs sought, as mentioned in para No.1 above.

¶31

Though both the defendants duly served with summons of the Orig. Application, by hand, vide Court Commissioner report

¶32

Exh. 7, they preferred to remain absent in the matter and

¶33

therefore, the matter proceeded ex parte against them.

¶34

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶35

The point that arises for consideration is, whether the applicant-bank is entitled for the claim made in the Orig.

¶36

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 128/2023)

¶37

Page 4 of 7

¶38

Application against the defendants, as prayed for ?

¶39

Perused the record. The applicant bank filed evidence on affidavit of Mr Raju Vitthal Waman (Exh.4) along with list of documents (Exh.5) annexing therewith 11 documents, which are marked as Exh.A.W.1 to A.W. 11 on behalf of the applicant, which clinches the claim of the applicant-bank against both the defendants. Moreover, in view of the fact that the averments in the Original Application have gone unrebutted, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled for the prayers made therein. Perusal of the documents including entries of deposit of amounts by defendants in statement of account filed shows that the Orig. Application is filed well within the prescribed period of limitation. Hence I hold that both the defendants are liable to pay to applicant bank the claim amount claimed in the Orig. Application with future reasonable interest considering meantime long period Covid-Pandeic-19 and costs.

¶40

In the result, the present Orig. Application is allowed with

(O.A. No. 128/2023)

( Madkar)

Page 5 of 7

costs, as under:

(A) Defendants No. 1 & 2 are ordered to pay jointly or severally sum of Rs. 25,28,625/- (Rs. twenty five lakhs twenty eight thousand six hundred twenty five only) alongwith further interest @ 8% p.a., Simple, till repayment/ realization.

¶46

(B) Amount recovered, if any, by applicant-bank during pendency of the Orig. Appln. shall be reduced from such calculated amount before the Recovery Officer and demand notice shall be issued for balance amount.

¶47

(C) The applicant-bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated vehicle, as described in the Orig. Appln. towards realization of their dues.

¶48

(D) The applicant-bank is entitled to proceed against the person and properties of both the defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶49

(E) The applicant bank is entitled to the costs of the Orig.Appication.

¶50

(F) The applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶51

(G) The applicant bank to file affidavit before the Recovery Officer about sale of property and appropriation of

¶52

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 128/2023)

¶53

Page 6 of 7

¶54

money in the loan account under the securitization, if any, before issuance of demand notice.

¶55

(H) Copy of order be sent to the Recovery Officer.

¶56

(I) Communicate copy of the order to the parties concerned Order be uploaded on the official website.

¶57

( Vimal Gupta ) PRESIDING OFFICER, Aurangabad, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, Date: 24/04/2024 Aurangabad

¶58

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 128/2023)

¶59

Page 7 of 7

Bank of Maharashtra v. Balasaheb Yogiraj Sanap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Balasaheb Yogiraj Sanap

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

State Bank of India versus Padmavati Traders

Rbl Bank Limited versus Kapil Trading Company

Bank of Maharashtra versus Vijaya Dinesh Soni

Ganesh Trimbak Shinde versus Aspire Home Finance Corporation Limited

Bank of Maharashtra versus Subhash Gopinath Bankar

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Khale Commercial Goat Farm