Allowed

Idbi Bank v. Aman Kamlesh Solanki

DRT22 Mar 2024OA/2/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by IDBI Bank against Aman Kamlesh Solanki for recovery of Rs. 80,65,071 including interest. The court held the bank proved its case based on documented evidence preceding the order.

What did the court decide?

Directed Defendant to pay Rs. 80,65,071 with interest @ 10.40% p.a. within 60 days; recovery to be effected from sale of mortgaged property if not paid; defendant restrained from dealing with properti

Idbi Bank versus Aman Kamlesh Solanki — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

OA 2 of 2023

¶2

Registered on:02.01.2023

¶3

Decided on: 22.03.2024

¶4

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT MUMBAI ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 2 of 2023

¶5

IDBI BANK, A company incorporated and registered under Indian Companies Act, 1956 [1/1956] and a banking company within the meaning of section 5[C] of Banking Regulation Act of 1949 [10/1949] and having its registered office and Branch Office at Retail Recovery Branch, 2^nd Floor, "C" Wing, Mittal Court, Nariman Point, Mumbai through its Authorised Officer Shri Abhishek

¶6

…. APPLICANT

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

AMAN KAMLESH SOLANKI F lat No. 001, G Wing Chandresh Kedar CHS Ltd, Lodha Hevan Nillije Dombivali Eaast Thane-42120

¶9

Flat No: 201 & 202, 2^nd Floor, Matru Chaya Bldg, Maharshi Karve Road, Opp Bedekar Hospital, Near Godrej Showroom, Navpada, Thane

¶10

Chemico Industries, Office No: 103, Newanand Park, Behind Rajesh Garden, Ragunath Nagar, Thane (West) - 400606

¶11

… DEFENDANT

¶12

_____________________________________________ Counsel for the Applicant : Advocate Ragini Jha Counsel for the Defendant : Ex-parte

OA 2 of 2023

J U D G M E N T

The Original Application has been filed by the Applicant against the Defendant for recovery of Rs. 80,65,071/- (Rupees Eighty Lakh Sixty Five Thousand Seventy One Only) with further interest @ 10.40 % p.a. from 06.08.2022 till final repayment.

¶17

Facts as succinctly set out in the present OA are that the Defendant is a borrower herein is an employee carrying on his employment at Chemio Industries, Office No. 103, Newanand Park, Behind Rajesh Garden, Ragunath Nagar, Thane (West)- 400 606.

¶18

It is stated that Defendant approached the Applicant for Housing Loan facility. Pursuant to the said request, Applicant vide sanction letter dated 19.04.2010 sanctioned Rs. 37,70,000/- to the Defendant.

¶19

In consideration of sanction of aforesaid home loan facility, Defendant executed following loaning and security documents on 19.04.2010:

¶20

i. Home Loan Agreement/ Loan Agreement along with Mortgage

¶21

ii. Power of Attorney

¶22

iii. Notarised Affidavit executed by the Defendant

¶23

In order to secure the aforesaid facility, Defendant has deposited the original title deeds with an intention to create mortgage of Flat No. 201 & 202, 2^nd Floor, Matru Chaya Bldg, Maharshi Karve Road, Opp. Bedekar Hospital, Near Godrej Showroom Navpada, Thane.

¶24

However, after availing aforesaid facility, Defendant failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues, thus the account was classified as NPA. Thereafter, the Applicant issued notice u/S 13 (2)

¶25

¶26

OA 2 of 2023

¶27

of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Subsequently, the Applicant through their Advocate letter dated 23.12.2019 called upon the Defendant to pay the outstanding dues, but failed to do so. Hence, the present OA has been filed.

¶28

Notice was issued to the Defendant. Despite service, none appeared on behalf of the Defendant nor any WS has been filed, thus he was proceeded ex-parte vide even order.

¶29

The Applicant Bank has produced all the Original Loan documents and other relevant documents along with their Claim Affidavit filed through their General Manager Sheela Menon.

¶30

I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank and perused the record.

¶31

The witness of the Applicant Bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the OA, even otherwise the whole case of the Applicant Bank is based on documents and the witness has duly proved all these documents as against the defendant. In my view there is no question of disbelieving the evidence led by the Applicant Bank and the Applicant Bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

¶32

In the light of above discussions, the Original Application filed by the Applicant Bank deserves to be allowed against the Defendant.

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

(i) I allow the present O.A. and direct the Defendant to pay to the Applicant, within a period of 60 days, a sum of Rs. 80,65,071/(Rupees Eighty Lakh Sixty Five Thousand Seventy One Only)

¶35

¶36

OA 2 of 2023

¶37

with further interest @ 10.40 % p.a. from 06.08.2022 till final repayment.

¶38

(ii) Failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of the mortgaged property, personal moveable and immoveable assets of the Defendant.

¶39

(iii) Defendant is hereby directed not to deal with their properties till further direction of Ld. Recovery Officer.

¶40

(iv) Defendant shall also pay the cost and expenses of the OA.

¶41

(v) Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer of this Tribunal. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record.

¶42

Place: Mumbai. (Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar) Date : 22.03.2024 Presiding Officer, DRT-1, Mumbai.

¶43

Tjs/-

¶44

Idbi Bank v. Aman Kamlesh Solanki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idbi Bank v. Aman Kamlesh Solanki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gulam Nabi Khanyari versus Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

Idbi Bank versus Mohak

Idbi Bank versus Vaishali Ramesh Sangle

Idbi Bank versus Jasmine

Dr Shital Vinay Patil Anr. versus Phonix Arc Private Limited & Ors.

Canara Bank versus Suhas Chandrakant Malik