Allowed

Uco Bank v. Aparna Pushpak Karule

DRT19 Jan 2024OA/200/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by UCO Bank for recovery of loan dues. The court passed an ex-parte decree in favor of the bank against the defendants who failed to appear, ordering payment of principal and future interest along with rights to sell secured assets.

What did the court decide?

Decree permitting recovery of Rs.32,71,170/- (Loan I) and Rs.5,02,501/- (Loan II) with future interest, sale of mortgaged/hypothecated assets, and issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Uco Bank versus Aparna Pushpak Karule — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on : 14.12.2021 Registered on : 01.03.2022 Decided on : 19.01.2024 Duration : Y M D 02 01 05

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 200/2022.

¶3

UCO Bank,

¶4

A Bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 having its head office at 10, B.T.M. Sarani, Kolkata and branch office at – 175-176 Oswal Plaza, In front of Usha Nursing Home, M.G. Road, Pune 411101.

¶5

.. Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 Mrs. Aparna Pushpak Karule @ Aparna Sahebrao Shendre, Age 32 years, Occ. Service,

¶8

2 Mr. Pushpak Ambadas Karule, Age 40 years, Occ. Service, Both R/o : 102, Sanskriti Heights, Ambegaon Bk., Near Sinhagad College, Pune 411046; also R/o : Flat No. 902, A Wing, Shree Vitthal Heritage, Ambegaon Bk., Katraj, Pune 46.

.. Defendants

(OA No. 200/2022)

Page 1 of 6

Sanap

APPEARANCES

For Applicant Advocate Nisha S Ruikar For Defendants Ex parte.

¶15

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs.37,73,671/-

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

( Delivered on 19^th January, 2024 )

¶18

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.37,73,671/- together with future interest @8.45 and 8.85% per annum with monthly rests from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶19

Brief facts of the application are as under :

¶20

Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 approached to applicant Bank requesting for Term Loan under UCO Home Loan Scheme. As per the loan application dated 29.09.2017 of the defendants, the applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed Term Loan under Home Loan Scheme of Rs.28,84,000/- vide Sanction Letter dated 01.02.2018 with agreed rate of interest @8.45% per annum with monthly rests.

¶21

Thereafter, again defendant Nos. 1 and 2 approached to applicant Bank requesting for Term Loan II under UCO Car Loan Scheme. As per the loan application dated 20.02.2018 of

(OA No. 200/2022)

Page 2 of 6

Sanap

the defendants, the applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed Term Loan II under Car Loan Scheme of Rs.5,29,000/- vide Sanction Letter dated 26.02.2018 with agreed rate of interest @8.85% per annum with monthly rests.

¶26

In order to secure the aforesaid Term Loan I and II, the defendants executed necessary loan and security documents along with deed of mortgage of Flat No. 102, Sanskriti Heights, S.No. 11, Hissa No. 6/1 at village Ambegaon Bk., Taluka Haveli, District Pune and hypothecation Hyundai Car No. MH12-PZ-9058 in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶27

Thereafter, on 30.09.2020, the defendants have acknowledged and confirmed the outstanding amounts in the Term Loan I and II on 30.09.2020.

¶28

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Therefore, on 17.07.2021, 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.

¶29

Hence, this application is filed.

¶30

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons.

(OA No. 200/2022)

Page 3 of 6

Sanap

Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 21.12.2023 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶35

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Niva Thakur, Chief Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW1-1 to AW1-16 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶36

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

¶37

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.

¶38

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶39

ORDER

¶40

(A) Original Application No. 200/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶41

(B) Defendant Nos.1 and 2 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.32,71,170/(Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Seventy One Thousand One Hundred Seventy only) towards Term Loan-I

(OA No. 200/2022)

Page 4 of 6

Sanap

along with future interest @8.45% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 14.12.2021 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶46

(C) Defendant Nos.1 and 2 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.5,02,501/(Rupees Five Lakhs Two Thousand Five Hundred One only) towards Term Loan-II along with future interest @8.85% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 14.12.2021 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶47

(D) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage of Flat No. 102, Sanskriti Heights, S.No. 11, Hissa No. 6/1 at village Ambegaon Bk., Taluka Haveli, District Pune and hypothecation of Hyundai Car No. MH-12-PZ-9058, more particularly described in Para No.3-A of the Original Application.

¶48

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

(OA No. 200/2022)

Page 5 of 6

Sanap

(F) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶53

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

¶54

Place : Pune Date : 19.01.2024

¶55

Sd/(Dilip G Murumkar) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶56

(OA No. 200/2022)

¶57

Page 6 of 6

¶58

Sanap

Uco Bank v. Aparna Pushpak Karule

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Aparna Pushpak Karule

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

Idbi Bank versus Yogiraj Sukale

Punjab National Bank versus Yogesh Siddhappa Hattale

Bank of Maharashtra versus Shri Deepak Dhondiram Shinde Prop of Quality Engineers

Punjab National Bank versus Lilabai Kharat

Oswal Shirish Dalichand HUF Through Its Karta Shirish Oswal versus Indian Bank

Yes Bank versus Ashok Khandu Amale