Allowed

Yes Bank v. Mahesh Popatrao Mansuke

DRT18 Jun 2024OA/256/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of dues from borrowers who failed to repay a commercial vehicle loan. After an ex parte hearing, the court reduced the claim by removing specific charges and directed payment of a principal amount with future interest at 9% per annum, securing the decree against hypothecated property.

What did the court decide?

Direct payment of Rs.21,90,837/- with future interest at 9% p.a.; permission to sell hypothecated vehicle; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Yes Bank versus Mahesh Popatrao Mansuke — Specific Performance | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 29.10.2021 Registered on: 01.04.2022 Decided on: 18.06.2024 Duration: Y M D 2 7 20

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.256/2022.

¶3

Yes Bank Ltd .

¶4

A Banking Company within the meaning of Section 5 C of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and constituted under Companies Act, 1956, having its registered Office at 9^th Floor, Discovery of India, Nehru Centre, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai - 400 018 and Branch office amongst others at Kalyani Nagar Branch, Pune 410 014.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Mr. Mahesh Popatrao Mansuke

¶8

2. Mrs. Arohi Mahesh Mansuke Both R/at- Masalwadi Vani Vasti, Katyachiwadi, Baramati, Pune- 413 120.

¶9

… Defendants

¶10

APPEARANCES

¶11

For the Applicant Mr. Pradip Yadav - Advocate For Defendant Ex parte

¶12

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.23,32,065.33 Ps

(OA No.256/2022)

Page 1 of 6

[ANIL]

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 18^th June, 2024)

¶18

The Applicant Bank has filed present Application for recovery of a sum of Rs.23,32,065.33Ps. as due on 07.08.2021 together with future interest @10.50% p.a. from 08.08.2021 till date of filing of Application and thereafter till repayment/realization of entire dues from the defendants.

¶19

Brief facts of the application are is under:

¶20

Defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 being borrower and Co-borrower respectively had applied for Commercial Vehicle Loan with the Applicant Bank. Relying on the representations made by the defendants, the Applicant Bank has sanctioned and disbursed a Commercial Vehicle Loan of Rs.24,26,000/- to the defendants.

¶21

In order to secure above mentioned Commercial Vehicle Loan, defendants executed Commercial Loan Agreement, necessary loan transactions and security documents. Further, defendants hypothecated Commercial Vehicle Ashok Leyland 2518 bearing RTO Registration No.NL-01-AD-8783, in favour of the Applicant Bank.

(OA No.256/2022)

Page 2 of 6

[ANIL]

It is contended by the Applicant Bank that after availing and utilizing Commercial Vehicle Loan, defendants failed to repay the loan amounts as per terms of sanction. Hence, the loan accounts were classified as Non-Performing Asset on 07.08.2021 as per the Reserve Bank of India norms.

¶26

Thereafter, the Applicant Bank on 01.07.2021 issued Recall Notice to the defendants calling upon them to pay the outstanding amounts. Despite service of Notice, defendants failed and neglected to comply with the demand in the said Notice.

¶27

Hence, this application is filed.

¶28

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex parte against the defendants vide order dated 06.02.2024 passed below the application (Exhibit-1).

¶29

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Aadesh Shintre, Authorized Representative, which supports the case of the applicant Bank elucidated in the application.

¶30

The applicant Bank has produced on record the original loan transaction documents alongwith list Exh.7 (Exh. AW-1 to AW-7), which corroborate the case of the applicant Bank.

(OA No.256/2022)

Page 3 of 6

[ANIL]

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

¶35

Since the defendants failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Applicant Bank. Therefore, the Applicant Bank is entitled for the reliefs claimed, excluding late payment charges, cheque bounce charges and other charges.

¶36

The Applicant Bank has claimed relief in respect of Late payment charges Rs.44,972/-, Cheque Bounce charges Rs.10,620/- and other charges Rs.85,636.33Ps, which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.23,32,065.33Ps is reduced to Rs.21,90,837/-.

¶37

The Applicant Bank has claimed future interest @10.50% per annum with monthly rests. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶38

Hence, I pass the following order:-

(OA No.256/2022)

Page 4 of 6

[ANIL]

ORDER

(A) Original Application No.256/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶44

(B) Defendant Nos.1 and 2 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank towards the Commercial Vehicle Loan, a sum of Rs.21,90,837/(Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Ninety Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Seven only ) with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e.29.10.2021 till payment /realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶45

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amounts are secured by the valid and subsisting hypothecation i.e. Commercial Vehicle Ashok Leyland 2518 bearing RTO Registration No.NL-01-AD-8783.

¶46

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the hypothecated property i.e. Commercial Vehicle Ashok Leyland 2518 bearing RTO Registration No.NL-01-AD-8783, to recover its dues.

¶47

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

(OA No.256/2022)

Page 5 of 6

[ANIL]

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

¶52

Place : Pune Date : 18.06.2024

¶53

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

¶54

(OA No.256/2022)

¶55

Page 6 of 6

¶56

[ANIL]

Yes Bank v. Mahesh Popatrao Mansuke

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yes Bank v. Mahesh Popatrao Mansuke

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

Punjab National Bank versus Suresh Pandhare

Union Bank of India versus Vikas Kate

Bank of India versus Yashwant Pawar

State Bank of Indore versus Prime Corporation

Canara Bank versus Jignesh Naram

Federal Bank versus Prakash