Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Ravindra

DRT21 Mar 2024OA/302/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of dues totaling approximately Rs.25.47 lakhs arising from four distinct loan accounts (Vehicle, Housing, CCCK, and Term Loans) against five defendants. The court, noting the defendants' failure to appear and lead evidence, decided to grant future interest at a reduced rate of 9% per annum instead of

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay principal amounts totaling Rs.25,47,402/- with future interest @9% p.a. jointly or severally. Issuance of Recovery Certificate. Power to sell mortgaged/hypothecated properties grante

Union Bank of India versus Ravindra — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 04.02.2022 Registered on: 18.04.2022 Decided on: 21.03.2024 Duration: Y M D 2 1 17

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.302/2022

¶3

Union Bank of India

¶4

(Erstwhile Corporation Bank)

¶5

[Corporation Bank merged with Union Bank of India vide Government’s Gazette Notification No.133 dated 04.03.2020]

¶6

A Banking Company constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) of 1970, having its Central Office at Union Bank Bhavan, 239 Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Mumbai-400 021 and branch amongst other places at – Jeevan Tara Building (LIC), 513 Sadar Bazar, Ganpatdas Devi Path, Satara-415 001 known as Satara Branch, Satara.

¶7

… Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Shri Ravindra Abaji Ghorpade, Adult, OCC: Agriculture, Residing at76 D, Mattyapur, Post Mazgaon, Taluka-Satara, District-Satara-415 518.

(OA No.302/2022)

Page 1 of 13

[ npb ]

Sou. Vidya Ravindra Ghorpade, Adult, OCC: Agriculture, Residing at76 D, Mattyapur, Post Mazgaon, Taluka-Satara, District-Satara-415 518.

¶14

Shri Sunil Vitthal Ghorpade, Adult, OCC: Agriculture, Residing atMattyapur, Post Mazgaon, TalukaSatara, District-Satara-415 518.

¶15

Shri Sangram Eknath Jadhav, Adult, Occ: Agriculture, Residing atAtit, Taluka-Satara, District-Satara-415 518.

¶16

Smt. Kamal Parshram Mane, Adult, Occ: Agriculture, Residing atAhire Colony, Post Kodoli, TalukaSatara, District-Satara-415 001. … Defendants

¶17

APPEARANCES

¶18

For the Applicant Mr. Ramesh B. Ganbote - Advocate For Defendant Nos.1 to 5 Mr. S.R. Kamble – Advocate

¶19

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.25,47,402/-

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

(Delivered on 21^st March, 2024)

¶22

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of aggregate sum of Rs.25,47,402/i.e. Rs.2,84,866/- in respect of Vehicle Loan account with future

(OA No.302/2022)

Page 2 of 13

[ npb ]

interest @13.75% p.a. with half yearly rests from defendant Nos.1 & 3; Rs.17,57,458/- in respect of Housing Loan account with future interest @12.25% p.a. with half yearly rests from defendant Nos.1, 2 & 4; Rs.3,35,078/- in respect of CCCK account with future interest @12.85% p.a. with half yearly rests from defendant Nos.1 & 2 and Rs.1,70,000/- in respect of Term Loan account with future interest @13.65% p.a. with half yearly rests from defendant Nos.1, 2 & 5 thereon from 04^th February, 2022 till repayment/realization of entire dues.

¶27

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶28

Defendant Nos.1 and 3 approached the erstwhile Corporation Bank on 01^st September, 2011 with a request for Vehicle Loan of Rs.5,40,000/- for purchase of Mahindra Bolero SLX BS-III Car to defendant No.1. Defendant No.3 offered himself as guarantor for securing the Vehicle Loan.

¶29

The Erstwhile applicant Bank i.e. Corporation Bank sanctioned and disbursed the Vehicle Loan on 28^th November, 2011 to defendant No.1. The Vehicle Loan was to carry interest @11.75% p.a.

¶30

The defendant Nos.1 and 3 signed and executed the

(OA No.302/2022)

Page 3 of 13

[ npb ]

loan transaction and security documents as set out in paragraph No.5.5.of the Original Application which includes the hypothecation of Mahindra Bolero Car more particularly mentioned in paragraph No.5.7 of the Original Application.

¶35

The defendant No.1 executed Acknowledgements of Debt/Liability on 03^rd July, 2017 and 30^th May, 2020 thereby admitted and confirmed the balance in the Vehicle Loan account.

¶36

The applicant Bank contended that on 16^th November, 2013 defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 approached the applicant Bank with a request for Housing Loan of Rs.24,00,000/- for purchase of Flat.

¶37

On 19^th November, 2013 the applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed the said Housing Loan to defendant Nos.1 and 2.

¶38

Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 have executed the security documents as set out in paragraph Nos.5.14 and 5.18 of the Original Application which includes Mortgage of the Flat No.04 more particularly set out in paragraph No.5.16 of the Original Application.

(OA No.302/2022)

Page 4 of 13

[ npb ]

The Housing Loan was to carry interest @10.25% p.a. with half yearly rests repayable by 12 yearly installments of Rs.1,20,000/-.

¶43

The defendant Nos.1 and 2 executed Acknowledgement of Debt/Liability on 22^nd September, 2016 and 31^st July, 2019 and confirmed the balance in Housing Loan account of defendant Nos.1 and 2.

¶44

The applicant Bank further contended that defendant Nos.1 and 2 again approached it on 13^th December, 2013 for Corp. Kisan Credit Card (CCCK) of Rs.4,00,000/- to defendant No.1 for production of sugarcane, ginger and other seasons’ crops as intercrop. Defendant No.2 stood as guarantor for securing CCCK loan.

¶45

The applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed the Corp. Kisan Credit Card loan (CCCK) on 21^st December, 2013, with interest @10.85% p.a. with half yearly rests, for which defendant Nos.1 and 2 signed and executed the loan transaction and security documents on 23^rd December, 2013 as set out in paragraph No.5.23 of the Original Application. Defendant No.1 has also executed E-Karar on 13^th December, 2013 u/s 5(1) of Maharashtra Provision of

(OA No.302/2022)

Page 5 of 13

[ npb ]

Facilities for Agricultural Credit by Banks Act, 1974 for securing the CCCK loan sanctioned to defendant No.1, thereby creating charge on property being Survey/Gat No.218 more particularly mentioned in paragraph No.5.25 of the Original Application.

¶50

Defendant No.1 signed and executed loan transaction and security documents as set out in paragraph No.5.27 of the Original Application. Defendant No.1 has also executed Acknowledgement of Debt/Liability on 09^th December, 2019 thereby admitted liability.

¶51

The applicant Bank further contended that on 27^th June, 2016 defendant Nos.1, 2 and 5 once again approached to it with a request to grant Term Loan of Rs.1,70,000/- for purchase of Drip Irrigation System to defendant Nos.1 and 2. Defendant No.5 offered as guarantor for securing the Term Loan. The applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed the said Term Loan on 27^th June, 2016 itself.

¶52

Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 5 signed and executed loan transaction and security documents as mentioned in paragraph No.5.31 of the Original Application. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have also executed Deed of Simple Mortgage

(OA No.302/2022)

Page 6 of 13

[ npb ]

dated 16^th June, 2016 in respect of immovable property being Gat No.144 more particularly mentioned in paragraph No.5.33 of the Original Application.

¶57

The Term Loan was to carry interest @11.65% p.a. with half yearly rests.

¶58

The defendant Nos.1 and 2 have also executed Acknowledgement of Debt/Liability on 03^rd April, 2019 thereby admitted their liability.

¶59

The applicant Bank further contended that defendants were not paying the installments and interest in all the loan accounts as agreed and committed breach of terms and conditions of sanction. Hence, the applicant Bank demanded the payment from defendants by personal visits and telephonically from time to time. Even after continuous demand by the applicant Bank, defendant Nos.1 and 2 failed to pay the installments and interest. Resultantly, their accounts have turned Non-Performing Asset as per Reserve Bank of India norms.

¶60

Hence, this application is filed.

¶61

Defendants were served with the summons. duly

¶62

Defendant Nos.1 to 5 filed Written Statement (Exhibit-11),

(OA No.302/2022)

Page 7 of 13

[ npb ]

however, failed to lead evidence in support of their contentions. Therefore, contentions raised in the Written Statement (Exhibit-11) are devoid of consideration as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Iswar Bhai C. Patel alias Bachu Bhai Patel Vs. Harihar Behera and Anr. Reported in AIR 1999 SC 1341 in respect of non-filing of the evidence affidavit. I therefore, hold that the evidence of Shri Rishi Vatsa, Chief Manager and Principal Officer, Union Bank of India, in the form of Claim Affidavit (Exhibit-6) and documentary evidence produced on record is conceivable. Therefore, the matter proceeded without evidence against defendant Nos.1 to 5 as per `No evidence Order’ dated 01^st February, 2024 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶67

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Shri Rishi Vatsa, Chief Manager and Principal Officer which supports the case of the applicant Bank elucidated in the application.

¶68

The applicant Bank has produced on record the original loan transaction documents (Sr.Nos.AW-1 to AW-54) which

(OA No.302/2022)

Page 8 of 13

[ npb ]

corroborate the case of the applicant Bank.

¶73

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

¶74

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.

¶75

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @13.75% p.a. with half yearly rests for Vehicle Loan account; @12.25% p.a. with half yearly rests for Housing Loan account; @12.85% p.a. with half yearly rests for CCCK loan account and @13.65% p.a. with half yearly rests for Term Loan account. However, considering facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% (simple) for all loan accounts, it would be just and reasonable.

¶76

Hence, I pass the following order:-

¶77

ORDER

¶78

(A) Original Application No.302/2022 is allowed with costs.

(OA No.302/2022)

Page 9 of 13

[ npb ]

(B) Defendant Nos.1 and 3 shall either jointly or severally pay to the applicant Bank towards Vehicle Loan account the sum of Rs.2,84,866/(Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty-Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty-Six only) with future interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 04^th February, 2022 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶83

(C) Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 shall either jointly or severally pay to the applicant Bank towards Housing Loan account the sum of Rs.17,57,458/(Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Fifty-Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty-Eight only) with future interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 04^th February, 2022 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶84

(D) Defendant Nos.1 and 2 shall either jointly or severally pay to the applicant Bank towards

(OA No.302/2022)

Page 10 of 13

[ npb ]

CCCK Loan account the sum of Rs.3,35,078/(Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty-Five Thousand and Seventy-Eight only) with future interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 04^th February, 2022 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶89

(E) Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 5 shall either jointly or severally pay to the applicant Bank towards Term Loan account the sum of Rs.1,70,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Thousand only) with future interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 04^th February, 2022 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶90

(F) The aforesaid adjudicated amounts are secured by valid and subsisting hypothecation of Vehicle i.e. Mahindra Bolero Car SLX BS-III bearing Registration No.MH-11/AW-6564, Chassis No.MA1PS2GPKB6L83512 and Engine No.GPB4L13108 more particularly mentioned in

(OA No.302/2022)

Page 11 of 13

[ npb ]

paragraph No.5.7 of the Original Application as also Crops, stock, machinery, equipments etc.

¶95

(G) The aforesaid adjudicated amounts are also secured by valid and subsisting Mortgage of immovable properties i.e.

¶96

All that piece and parcel of Flat No.04 admeasuring 671 Sq. Ft. i.e. 62.36 Sq. Mtrs. carpet area on ground floor in the building No.D viz. Sai Jyoti in the scheme known as Chandrabhaga Garden City in the landed property bearing Plot No.6 out of Survey No.144, 145 & 146 at Village Godoli, Taluka & District-Satara;

¶97

All that piece and parcel of Survey/Gat No.218 admeasuring 01 Hector 50 Aar, Survey/Gat No.376 admeasuring 00 Hector 36 Aar and Survey/Gat No.167 admeasuring 00 Hector 17.5 Aar at Village Mattyapur, Taluka and District – Satara and

¶98

All that piece and parcel of Gat No.144 admeasuring 01 Hector 00 Aar plus PK 00

(OA No.302/2022)

Page 12 of 13

[ npb ]

Hector 01 Aar at Village Mattyapur, Taluka Satara and within the limits of Registration District Satara, Sub Registration District Satara, District - Satara,

¶103

more particularly mentioned in paragraph Nos.5.16, 5.25 and 5.33 respectively of the Original Application.

¶104

(H) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the hypothecated/mortgaged properties to recover its dues.

¶105

(I) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶106

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

¶107

Place : Pune Date : 21.03.2024

¶108

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

¶109

(OA No.302/2022)

¶110

Page 13 of 13

¶111

[ npb ]

Union Bank of India v. Ravindra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Ravindra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Idbi Bank versus Chandrasen Kamable

Bank of India versus Sanjay Wagh

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr. Pranav Prasanna Bhave Prop. M/S. Pranav Offset

Yes Bank versus Gopichand D. Kate

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) versus Vaishali Dumbare

Bank of India versus Shashikant Ghadge