Allowed

Yes Bank v. Siraj Ismail Shekh

DRT21 Oct 2024OA/263/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed a recovery application filed by Yes Bank Ltd against two borrowers for a default in repayment of a commercial vehicle loan. The court adjusted the claim by excluding unclaimed charges and reduced the interest rate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants shall jointly or severally pay Rs. 20,98,659/- with future interest @9% p.a. (Simple) from 01.03.2022, secured by a charge on the Ashok Leyland vehicle, with direction to sell the vehicle i

Yes Bank versus Siraj Ismail Shekh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 01.03.2022 Registered on: 01.04.2022 Decided on: 21.10.2024 Duration: Y M D 02 07 20

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.263/2022.

¶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 Erandawana Branch, Pune 410 004.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Mr. Siraj Ismail Shekh

¶8

2. Mrs. Samina Siraj Shekh Both R/at- Garade, Tal. Purandhar, … Defendants District Pune-412 305.

¶9

APPEARANCES

¶10

For the Applicant Mr. Pradip Yadav – Advocate For the Defendants Ex-parte.

¶11

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.24,99,128.54Ps.

(OA No.263/2022)

Page 1 of 5

[ANIL]

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 21^st October, 2024)

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed present Application for recovery of a sum of Rs.24,99,128.54Ps. due on 05.01.2022 together with future interest @09.25% p.a. from 06.01.2022 till the date of filing of the Application and thereafter till repayment/realization of the entire dues, from the defendants.

¶18

Brief facts of the application are is under:

¶19

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 Construction Equipment Loan of Rs.28,00,000/- to the Defendants.

¶20

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 3718 bearing RTO Registration No.MG-12-QG-1893, in favour of the Applicant Bank, as mentioned in Para No.5.3 of the Original Application.

(OA No.263/2022)

Page 2 of 5

[ANIL]

So also, to secure the repayment of said Loan, the Defendants have kept First and Exclusive Charge of Commercial Vehicle Ashok Leyland 3718 bearing RTO Registration No.MH-12-QG-1893 in favour of the Applicant Bank vide Loan Agreement dated 29.09.2017.

¶25

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. Looking to the regular defaults by the Defendants, the Applicant Bank on 01.07.2021 issued Loan Recall Notice to the Defendants calling upon them to pay the outstanding amounts. Despite service of Notice, the Defendants failed and neglected to comply with the demand in the said Notice.

¶26

Hence, this application is filed.

¶27

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against the Defendants vide order dated 03.05.2024 passed below the Application (Exhibit-1).

¶28

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

(OA No.263/2022)

Page 3 of 5

[ANIL]

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

¶33

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

¶34

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.

¶35

The Applicant Bank has claimed relief in respect of Cheque Bouncing charges Rs.15,104/- and other charges Rs.3,85,365.54Ps, which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.24,99,128.54Ps is reduced to Rs.20,98,659/-.

¶36

The Applicant Bank has claimed future interest @09.25% 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.

(OA No.263/2022)

Page 4 of 5

[ANIL]

11. Hence, I pass the following order:-

¶41

ORDER

¶42

(A) Original Application No.263/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶43

(B) Defendant Nos.1 and 2 either jointly or severally shall pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.20,98,659/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Nine only ) towards the Commercial Vehicle Loan with future interest @9%p.a. (Simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e.01.03.2022 till payment /realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶44

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by keeping First and exclusive charge on the Commercial Vehicle Ashok Leyland 3718 bearing RTO Registration No.MH-12-QG-1893.

¶45

(D) The Applicant Bank is entitled to sell the Commercial Vehicle i.e.Ashok Leyland 3718 bearing RTO Registration No.MH-12-QG-1893, to recover its dues.

¶46

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶47

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

¶48

Sd/( Dilip G Murumkar) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 21.10.2024 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶49

(OA No.263/2022)

¶50

Page 5 of 5

¶51

[ANIL]

Yes Bank v. Siraj Ismail Shekh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yes Bank v. Siraj Ismail Shekh

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus Satish

Canara Bank versus Kalpavruksha Agro Industries

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus Shivyogi Swami

Indian Bank versus Hasina Inamdar

Bank of Maharashtra versus Shinde Building Material Suppliers, Prop. Shashikant Vishwanath Shinde

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S Ajinkya Stationers Prop Mr. Satyajeet Parashuram Gokhale