Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Makrand

DRT23 Jan 2024OA/224/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Applicant Bank's recovery application against three defendants (borrowers and guarantor). The court adjusted the claim amount and reduced the future interest rate from 10% to 9% per annum before directing repayment secured by the mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs.20,42,913/- with future interest @9% p.a., property mortgaged security, and issue of Recovery Certificate.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Makrand — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 19.09.2019 Registered on: 20.11.2019 Decided on: 23.01.2024 Duration: Y M D 4 2 18

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.224/2022

¶3

Bank of Maharashtra

¶4

Banking Company incorporated under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its Head Office at “Lokmangal”, 1501, Shivajinagar, Pune-411 005 and one of its Branch at Kuvarbav, Dist: Ratnagiri415 612.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Shri Makrand Kisan Mayekar, R/at: Building No.7, Rajyog Wateeka, Village Post: Nachane, Dist: Ratnagiri-415 612.

¶8

Mrs. Vaishali Kisan Mayekar, R/at: Building No.7, Rajyog Wateeka, Village Post: Nachane, Dist: Ratnagiri-415 612.

¶9

Shri Devdas Kisna Mayekar, R/at: Building No.7, Rajyog Wateeka, Village Post: Nachane, Dist: Ratnagiri-415 612.

… Defendants

(OA No.224/2022)

Page 1 of 7

[ npb ]

APPEARANCES

For the Applicant Mr. Pawankumar Pathak – Advocate For Defendants None

¶16

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.20,43,575/-

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

(Delivered on 23^rd January, 2024)

¶19

The Applicant Bank has filed the present Application for recovery of sum of Rs.20,43,575/- in respect of Housing Loan account from defendant Nos.1 to 3 together with future interest @10% p.a. with monthly rests, from the date of the Application i.e. 19^th September, 2019 till full repayment/realization of entire dues.

¶20

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶21

The defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the borrowers and mortgagors of Housing Loan facility availed by them for purchasing residential Bungalow. Defendant No.3 is the guarantor for repayment of the said Housing Loan.

¶22

The applicant Bank contended that defendant Nos.1 and 2 approached it for Housing Loan facility of Rs.20,00,000/- which was sanctioned and disbursed on 26^th July, 2013. The Housing Loan was to carry interest @10% p.a. with monthly rests to be repaid by 240 EMI of

(OA No.224/2022)

Page 2 of 7

[ npb ]

Rs.19,300/-.

On 23^rd August, 2013, the defendants executed loan transaction and security documents as set out in paragraph Nos.5.5 and 5.7 of the Original Application including Equitable Mortgage bearing registration No.625/2013 dated 22^nd August, 2013 in respect of immovable property i.e. Bungalow No.7, Rajyog Wateeka, At Post Nachane, Dist: Ratnagiri more particularly mentioned in Schedule-A of the Original Application.

¶28

The applicant Bank further contended that defendant Nos.1 to 3 executed Balance and Security Confirmation Letters dated 20^th August, 2016 and 30^th July, 2019 acknowledging their liability in Housing Loan account.

¶29

It is further contended by the applicant Bank that after availing Housing Loan facility, defendant borrowers committed default in repayment of the loan facility. Therefore, the Housing Loan account was classified as NonPerforming Asset on 26^th March, 2021 as per Reserve Bank of India norms.

¶30

Thereafter, the applicant Bank issued Demand Notice on 20^th January, 2022 calling upon defendants to repay the

(OA No.224/2022)

Page 3 of 7

[ npb ]

amount outstanding in the Housing Loan account. Despite issuance of Demand Notice, defendants failed and neglected to pay the amount mentioned in the said Notice. Hence, this application is filed.

¶35

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex parte against them vide Order dated 19^th January, 2024 passed below the Application (Exhibit-1).

¶36

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Shri Shivanand Sadashiv Mokashi, Chief Manager which supports the case of the applicant Bank elucidated in the application.

¶37

The applicant Bank has produced on record the original loan transaction documents in evidence (AW-1-1 to AW-111) which corroborate the case of the applicant Bank.

¶38

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

¶39

Since the defendants failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of the

(OA No.224/2022)

Page 4 of 7

[ npb ]

applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for reliefs as claimed.

¶44

The applicant Bank has claimed Penal Interest of Rs.662/as mentioned in Particulars of Claim at paragraph No.5.12 of the Original Application which cannot be granted and this amount is deducted from total claim amount. Thus, the total claim amount stands reduced from Rs.20,43,575/- to Rs.20,42,913/-.

¶45

The applicant has claimed future interest @10% p.a. with monthly rests for Housing Loan accounts. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% p.a. (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶46

Hence, I pass the following order:-

¶47

ORDER

¶48

(A) Original Application No.224/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶49

(B) Defendant Nos.1 to 3 shall either jointly or severally pay to the applicant Bank towards Housing Loan the sum of Rs.20,42,913/- (Rupees

(OA No.224/2022)

Page 5 of 7

[ npb ]

Twenty Lakhs Forty-Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirteen only) with future interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e.19^th September, 2019 till full realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶54

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amounts are secured by the mortgage of immovable property i.e. All that piece and parcel of land situated at Village Nachane within the limits of Nachane Grampanchyat, Tal & Dist: Ratnagiri, Sub-Registrar Ratnagiri bearing Survey No.52, Hissa No.2A3 2/2 area admeasuring 0.25.34 Hectare along with Bungalow constructed thereon bearing No.7, Ground+1^st Floor, admeasuring 1067 sq. ft. (Carpet) in the Bungalow project known as “Rajyog Wateeka”, more particularly mentioned in Schedule-A of the Original Application as well as Mortgage Deed (2^nd Schedule) dated 13.08.2013.

¶55

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

(OA No.224/2022)

Page 6 of 7

[ npb ]

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶60

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

¶61

Sd/- (Dilip G Murumkar) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 23.01.2024 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune

¶62

(OA No.224/2022)

¶63

Page 7 of 7

¶64

[ npb ]

Bank of Maharashtra v. Makrand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Makrand

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

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

Uco Bank versus Aparna Pushpak Karule

Punjab National Bank versus Lilabai Kharat

Yes Bank versus Ashok Khandu Amale

Uco Bank versus Dasa Shiva Narute

Punjab National Bank versus Anil Atmaram Haware