Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Ms Khutale Construction Prop Mr. Tukaram Sarjerao Khutale

DRT24 Jun 2024OA/347/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an ex-parte application filed by the Bank of Maharashtra for recovery of Rs. 27.59 Lakhs with future interest. The court found defendants defaulted and granted relief at a modified interest rate of 9% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to repay Rs. 27,59,482 with future interest @ 9% p.a. from 07.09.2021 and issue Recovery Certificate.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Ms Khutale Construction… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on : 07.09.2021 Registered on : 13.04.2022 Decided on : 24.06.2024 Duration : Y M D 02 09 17

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 347/2022.

¶3

Bank of Maharashtra, A Banking Company Incorporated 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 Bambavade, Taluka Shahuwadi, District Kolhapur 413 402.

¶4

.. Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1 M/s. Khutale Constructions, Prop. Mr. Tukaram Sarjerao Khutale, Age 36 years, Occ. : Business, R/at – Khutalwadi, Taluka Shahuwadi, District Kolhapur.

¶7

2 Mr. Babasaheb Daji Khutale, Age 47 years, Occ. : Business, R/at – Khutalwadi, Taluka Shahuwadi, District Kolhapur.

(OA No. 347/2022)

Page 1 of 5

Sanap

3 Mr. Jagdish Annasaheb Khutale, Age - Adult, Occ. : Business, R/at – Bambavade, Taluka Shahuwadi, District Kolhapur.

¶12

.. Defendants

¶13

APPEARANCES

¶14

For Applicant For Defendants	Advocate Ashok Tamboli. Exparte.

¶15

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.27,59,482/-

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

(Delivered on 24^th June, 2024)

¶18

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.27,59,482/- together with future interest @13.50% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶19

Brief facts of the application are as under :

¶20

As per the loan application of defendant No.1, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Cash Credit facility of Rs.20,00,000/- to defendant No.1 vide Sanction Letter dated 19.07.2013.

¶21

In order to secure the aforesaid Cash Credit facility, the defendants have executed necessary loan and security documents i.e. Demand Promissory Note, Receipt of amount of loan, letter of proprietorship, deed of hypothecation, guarantee

(OA No. 347/2022)

Page 2 of 5

Sanap

for all facilities along with deed of mortgage of the land Milkat No. 739 situated at village Khutalwadi, Taluka Shahuwadi, District Kolhapur, in favour of the applicant Bank. The defendants have also executed Balance and Security Confirmation Letter dated 17.06.2019.

¶26

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Hence, on 30.04.2018, the applicant Bank has classified the account of the defendants as Non Performing Asset in accordance with guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Therefore, on 16.01.2019, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendants. Despite service of Notice, the defendants failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank.

¶27

Hence, this application is filed.

¶28

The defendant failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 14.02.2024 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶29

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Pankaj Kumar Yadav, Branch Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan

(OA No. 347/2022)

Page 3 of 5

Sanap

transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1 to AW-14 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶34

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 evidence of the applicant Bank. The applicant Bank has not specifically pleaded about role of defendant Nos.2 and 3, however, there is mention that the defendants executed guarantee deed. The applicant Bank has also produced Guarantee deed executed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 at Sr. No. AW-7 of list Exhibit 7. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for reliefs as claimed.

¶36

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @13.50% per annum. 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.

¶37

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(A) Original Application No.347/22 is allowed with costs.

(OA No. 347/2022)

Page 4 of 5

Sanap

(B) Defendant Nos.1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.27,59,482/(Rs. Twenty Seven Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Two only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 07.09.2021 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶44

¶45

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

¶46

Place : Pune Date : 24.06.2024

¶47

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

¶48

(OA No. 347/2022)

¶49

Page 5 of 5

¶50

Sanap

Bank of Maharashtra v. Ms Khutale Construction Prop Mr. Tukaram Sarjerao Khutale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Ms Khutale Construction Prop Mr. Tukaram Sarjerao Khutale

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 Aparna Dhame

State Bank of India versus Sambhaji

Uco Bank versus Vijaykumar Dhawan

State Bank of India versus Mallikarjuna Khed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Vitthal Ingole

Bank of Maharashtra versus Hindurao Liman