Allowed

State Bank of India v. Ms Sai Samarth Communication

DRT18 Apr 2024OA/336/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad, allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs. 1.94 crore plus future interest at 8% p.a. from the borrowers and guarantors, finding no rebuttal against the plaintiff's evidence and allowing sale of mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 1,94,96,848/- with 8% simple interest; bank entitled to sale of mortgaged properties and recovery from defendant persons.

State Bank of India versus Ms Sai Samarth Communication — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 15/06/2022 Registered on: 17/08/2022 Decided on: 18/04/2024 Duration: Y. M. D. 1 – 10 - 15

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, at Aurangabad

¶3

Original Application No. 336 of 2022

¶4

Claim : Recovery of Rs. 1,94,96,848/-

¶5

State Bank of India

¶6

a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its local Head Office at Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai and one of its Branch at SME Branch at Shrirampur through one of its Officer i.e. Branch Manager Shri Samar s/o Ramesh Dongre, age 38 years occup. service as Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch at SME, Shrirampur and having authority to file the application which includes the authority to sign & verify the application.

¶7

… Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 M/s. Sai Samarth Communication through its Proprietor Mrs Sunita Mukundrao Kapre R/o Sai Dhyan No. 1, Room No.5, Sai Nagar, Shirdi Taluka Rahuri Dist. Ahmednagar, pin code 413715 Mob. No. 9423135800

¶10

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 336/2022)

¶11

Page 1 of 9

¶12

2 Mr Prabhakar Govindrao Kote R/o 1404, Shirdi Tal. Rahata Dist. Ahmednagar–413715

¶13

3 Mr Mukund Trimbak Kapre R/o Nandurkhi Road, Ganeshwadi, Govind Nagar, Nogoj, Shirdi Tal. Rahata Dist. Ahmednagar - Mob. No. 9423135800

¶14

…Defendants

¶15

Appearance :

¶16

For Applicant-bank : Mr. Arun V. Rakh, Adv. For Defendants Mr S. S. Kulkarni, Adv.

¶17

Shri Vimal Gupta Presiding Officer

¶18

Pronounced on: 18^th April 2024

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The applicant-bank has filed the present Original Application against defendants No.1 to 3 for recovery of sum of Rs. 1,94,96,848/- (Rs. one crore ninety four lakhs ninety six thousand eight hundred forty eight only) towards outstanding of

¶21

loan amounts availed by them, together with future interest @

¶22

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 336/2022)

¶23

Page 2 of 9

¶24

14.74% p.a. for due cash credit loan facility of Rs. 1,81,41,681/and @ 12.30% p.a. for due Term Loan amount of Rs. 13,55,167/-, from 02/06/2022 till repayment/ realization, and, in default, for sale of mortgaged and hypothecated properties, as described in the Original Application.

¶25

Facts of the case, in short, are that defendant No.1 is the proprietorship firm and Smt. Sunita Mukundrao Kapare is the proprietor of the said firm. Defendant No.1 as borrower and defendants No. 2 & 3 as guarantors obtained initially Over Draft Loan facility under the Mortgage an amount of Rs. 24.00 lakhs from the applicant bank as working capital to start the business, vide sanction/arrangement letter dated 07/03/2009, on execution of relevant documents to secure the loan amounts including registered Mortgage deed by one Vatsalabai Govind Kote, vide No. 977/2009 dated 07/03/2009 and acceptance of terms and conditions as to repayment alongwith contractual interest. It is further pleaded that said Vatsalabai Govind Kote has transferred

¶26

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 336/2022)

¶27

Page 3 of 9

¶28

said mortgaged property in favour of defendant No.2 Prabhakar Govindrao Kote vide registered Gift Deed dated 23/12/2010 and therefore, fresh documents have been executed by said Deft. No.2 in favour of applicant bank and guarantee by Vatsalabai has been released. It is further pleaded that defendants No.1 to 3 obtained enhancement in aforesaid loan facility of Rs. 24.00 lakhs upto Rs. 65.00 lakhs from applicant bank vide sanction letter dated 10/03/2011, on execution of relevant documents by defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of applicant to secure the loan amount, including Simple Mortgage Deed vide No. 1367/2011 dated 08/03/2011 in favour of applicant which they agreed to repay it alongwith interest @ 13.75% p.a. with monthly rests. Applicant pleads that the defendants again got enhanced aforesaid loan amount of Rs. 65.00 lakhs upto Rs. 1,25,00,000/- (Rs. one crore twenty five lakhs only) from the applicant vide arrangement letter dated 13/07/2012, on execution of relevant documents to secure the loan amount including Deed of further charge vide No.

¶29

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 336/2022)

¶30

Page 4 of 9

¶31

3530/2012 dated 13/07/2012. Defendants agreed to repay said loan amount alaongwith interest @ 15% p.a. The applicant further pleads that defendants again obtained temporary overdrawing limit loan of Rs. 12,50,000/- (Rs. twelve lakhs fifty thousand only) for three months and reviewed the overdraft loan facility at the existing level i.e. Rs. 1,25,00,000/-, vide Arrangement Letter dated 23/06/2015. Moreover, the defendants again got enhancement of overdraft under mortgage loan facility from Rs. 1.25 crore to Rs. 1.50 crore, vide Arrangement letter dated 22/02/2017. The loan amounts were to be repaid alongwith interest @ 12.75% p.a. It is further pleaded that cash credit limit of Rs. 1.50 crore reduced to Rs. 1.20 crore and sanctioned new Term Loan of Rs. 30.00 lakhs to defendants , vide Arrangement letter dated 31/03/2019 and; also renewed existing CC amount of Rs. 1.20 crore and the term loan at existing outstanding vide Arrangement letter dated 15/02/2021. It is pleaded that however, the defendants could not follow the repayment programme and

¶32

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 336/2022)

¶33

Page 5 of 9

¶34

¶35

failed to repay it as agreed and thereby the loan accounts classified as NPA on 31/03/2021 and the applicant therefore, issued legal demand notice on 10/05/2022, to which the defendants did not pay any response. It is pleaded that the applicant bank is entitled to charge additional penal interest @ 2% p.a. on account of failure to follow the repayment programme as agreed. Hence this Original Application, with prayer for the reliefs sought, as mentioned in para No.1 above.

¶36

Though defendants No. 1 to 3 appeared in the matter, they failed to file their written statement and therefore, the Orig. Application proceeded without their written statement.

¶37

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶38

¶39

The point that arises for consideration is, whether the applicant-bank is entitled for the claim made in the Orig. Application against the defendants, as prayed for ?

¶40

The applicant bank filed evidence on affidavit of Mr

¶41

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 336/2022)

¶42

Page 6 of 9

¶43

Samar Ramesh Dongre (Exh.4) along with list of documents (Exh.5) annexing therewith 24 documents, which are marked as Exh.A.W.1 to A.W. 24 on behalf of applicant, which clinches the claim of the applicant-bank against all the defendants. Moreover, in view of the fact that the averments in the Original Application have gone unrebutted, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled for the prayers made therein. Perusal of the documents including entries of deposit of amounts by defendants in ledger extracts filed shows that the application is filed well within the prescribed period of limitation. Hence I hold that all the defendants are liable to pay to applicant bank the claim amount claimed in the Orig. Application with future reasonable interest considering meantime long period Covid-Pandeic-19 and costs.

¶44

In the result, the present Orig. Application is allowed with costs, as under:

¶45

(A) Defendants No. 1 to 3 are ordered to pay jointly or

¶46

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 336/2022)

¶47

Page 7 of 9

¶48

severally sum of Rs. 1,94,96,848/- (Rs. one crore ninety

¶49

four lakhs ninety six thousand eight hundred forty eight

¶50

only) alongwith interest @ 8% p.a., Simple, from

¶51

02/06/2022 till repayment/ realization.

¶52

(B) Amount recovered, if any, by applicant-bank during pendency of the Orig. Appln. shall be reduced from such calculated amount before the Recovery Officer and demand notice shall be issued for balance amount.

¶53

¶54

the Orig. Appln. towards realization of their dues;

¶55

(D) The applicant-bank is entitled to proceed against the person and properties of all the defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶56

(E)

¶57