The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for recovery of dues against a borrower and corporate guarantor. The court reduced the claim amount by deducting penal interest grant
Defendants to jointly or severally pay reduced principal of Rs.25,36,115/- plus future interest at 9% per annum and issuance 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: 03.02.2021 Registered on: 10.01.2022 Decided on: 13.08.2024 Duration: Y M D 03 06 10
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.17/2022.
CANARA BANK ,
A Body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings Act, 1970 having its Head Office 112 JC Road, Bangalore, Karnataka-560001 and having one of its branches amongst other places at Kothrud, Pune. Versus
… Applicant
1. Mr. Chandrakant Bhikoba Bandgar R/at, Bandgar Vasti, Khed Budruk, Satara.
2. Kisanveer Satara Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Address- Bhuinj, Taluka Wai, District Satara, Through its Directors - A- Madan Prataprao Bhosale B- Ashok Bhargav Jadhav C- Vitthal Pralhad Kadam D- Shankarrao Jagannath Kadam … Defendants APPEARANCES For the Applicant M. V. Keni & Co. - Advocate. For the Defendant Ex parte.
APPEARANCES
For the Applicant For the Defendant
TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.26,11,134/-
(OA No.17/2022)
Page 1 of 6
[ANIL]
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 13th August, 2024)
Defendant No.1 is a borrower who availed Short Term Loan facility from the Applicant Bank. Defendant No.2 is a Corporate Guarantor who extended it’s corporate guarantee to secure the repayment of Loan Facility availed by Defendant No.1.
Defendant No.2 being one of the contractors out of listed 306 approached and requested Applicant Bank for sanctioning Loan Advances/Short Term Loan for its Harvesters/Transporter Contractors together aggregating of Rs.41 Crores.
The Applicant Bank sanctioned aggregating Short Term Loan facility of Rs.41 Crores to it’s Harvesters/ Transporter Contractors, as per the list submitted by Defendant No.2, which includes Defendant No.1.
(OA No.17/2022)
Page 2 of 6
[ANIL]
The Applicant further submits that on the request of Defendant No.2, Applicant Bank issued revised Sanction Letter dated 15.07.2017 and sanctioned Short Term Loan limit of Rs.40 Crores for the harvesters of Defendant No.2. The Board of Directors i.e. Defendant No.2 signed and executed Tri Partite Agreement in favour of the Applicant Bank for securing the repayment of Loan advances/Short Term Loan to be extended to it’s contractors.
The Applicant further submits that Defendant No.1 being one of the contractors out of 306 has approached the Applicant Bank for availing Harvest & Transport Loan Facility and accordingly, the Applicant Bank sanctioned the Short Term Loan Facility of Rs.19,55,000/- to Defendant No.1 on 31.12.2016.
In order to secure the Short Term Loan facilities, the defendants have executed necessary loan transaction and security documents, in favour of the Applicant Bank for securing Term Loan Facility of Rs.19,55,000/- availed by Defendant No.1.
(OA No.17/2022)
Page 3 of 6
[ANIL]
installments as well as principal sum under the Loan Account No.2079889001850, despite of various reminders. The applicant Bank in view of defaults committed by the defendants in repayment of the dues, the loan account of Defendant No.1 has committed default on 10.01.2020, as per the RBI guidelines.
Thereafter, the Applicant Bank on 24.09.2020 issued recall Notice through Advocate to the defendants to pay the outstanding amounts. Despite service of the Notice, defendants failed and neglected to comply with the demand in the said recall Notice.
Hence, this application is filed.
(OA No.17/2022)
Page 4 of 6
[ANIL]
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Iswar Bhai C, Patel alias Bachu Bhai Patel Vs. Harihar Behara and Anr. reported in AIR 1999 SC 1341 in respect of non-filing of the evidence affidavit. I, therefore, hold that the evidence of Ms. Neha Sharavan Jagadhane, witness of the Applicant Bank in the form of Claim Affidavit and documentary evidence produced on record (AW-1 to AW-23) is conceivable. Therefore, application deserves to be allowed.
(OA No.17/2022)
Page 5 of 6
[ANIL]
that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple) for all the facilities, it would be just and reasonable.
10 Hence, I pass the following order: -
ORDER
Sd/Place: Pune (Dilip G. Murumkar) Date: 13.08.2024 Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.
(OA No.17/2022)
Page 6 of 6
[ANIL]
[ANIL] (OA No.17/2022) Page 7 of 6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the claims of recovery can be allowed when one defendant fails to appear and the other denies liability but fails to lead evidence.
Whether the claimed penal interest and future interest rates are reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
Whether a recovery certificate can be issued following the allowance of the application.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Canara Bank
Dilip G. Murumkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
