Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Dilip Jagtap

DRT5 Oct 2024OA/307/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of outstanding dues against the defendant in his absence. Interest rate was adjusted to 9% and penal interest deducted, with a Recovery Certificate issued. Defendant failed to appear.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 24,41,220 with 9% future interest; Recovery Certificate issued.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Dilip Jagtap — Money Laundering | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on : 09.02.2022 Registered on : 21.03.2022 Decided on : 05.10.2024 Duration : Y M D 02 07 26

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 307/2022.

¶3

Bank of Maharashtra,

¶4

A Body Corporate established under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its registered office at “Lokmangal”, 1501, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411005 and one of its branch office at Bhigwan Chowk, Baramati, Taluka Baramati, District Pune.

¶5

.. Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Shri Dilip Dhansingh Jagtap, Age : - , Occ. Business, R/at : Flat 5, Shishir, Building No.3, Laxminarayan Nagar, Mukti Village Coop. Housing Society, Kasba, Baramati, Taluka Baramati, District Pune 413 102.

.. Defendant

(OA No. 307/2022)

Page 1 of 5

Sanap

APPEARANCES

For Applicant	Advocate R.B. Ganbote.
For Defendant	Exparte.

¶14

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.24,43,093/-

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

(Delivered on 05^th October, 2024)

¶17

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.24,43,093/- together with future interest @13% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendant.

¶18

Brief facts of the application are as under :

¶19

As per the loan application of the defendant, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Cash Credit facility of Rs.14,85,000/- to the defendant vide Sanction Letter dated 02.03.2013.

¶20

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant executed necessary loan and security documents along with deed of mortgage of Flat No. 15, admeasuring 700 sq. ft. on second floor in the buiding known as Shishir situated on plot No. 26 and 27 out of S.No. 40/3+40/1 in Mukti Village Co-operative Society No.3, Village Kasba Baramati Gramin, Taluka Baramati, District Pune, in favour of the applicant Bank. Further, the defendant has also executed Balance and Security

(OA No. 307/2022)

Page 2 of 5

Sanap

Confirmation Letters on 29.12.2015 and 14.11.2018 in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶25

Thereafter, in January 2019 the defendant requested for restructuring of Cash Credit account into Term Loan account, which the applicant Bank considered and reconstructed the balance into Term Loan account. Accordingly, the defendant executed necessary documents on 28.02.2019.

¶26

The applicant Bank contended that the defendant committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Hence, the applicant Bank has classified the account of the defendant as Non Performing Asset in accordance with guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Therefore, on 29.01.2022, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendant. Despite service of Notice, the defendant failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶27

The defendant failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 16.052024 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶28

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Dhirendra Kumar, Chief Manager and Principal

(OA No. 307/2022)

Page 3 of 5

Sanap

Officer of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1 to AW-16 along with list (Exhibit 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 defendant 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.

¶35

The applicant Bank has claimed relief in respect of hypothecated assets. However, there is no detailed description with respect to the hypothecated assets, therefore, the relief in terms of hypothecated assets cannot be granted.

¶36

The applicant Bank has claimed Penal Interest of Rs.1,873/-, which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.24,43,093/- is reduced to Rs.24,41,220/-.

¶37

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @13% per annum. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum

(OA No. 307/2022)

Page 4 of 5

Sanap

(simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest. Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶42

ORDER

¶43

(A) Original Application No. 307/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶44

(B) The defendant shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.24,41,220/- (Rs. Twenty Four Lakhs Forty One Thousand Two Hundred Twenty only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 09.02.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶45

¶46