Allowed

State Bank of India v. Pramila Salunke

DRT1 Feb 2024OA/355/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal at Pune allowed a recovery application filed by State Bank of India against a borrower and guarantor for a Kisan Cash Credit Loan. The court reduced the claim by deducting penal interest and adjusted the future interest rate to 9% p.a. The order directed joint and several payment of the adjudicated amount and secured recovery through hypothecation and mortgage of specif

What did the court decide?

Joint and several payment of Rs.22,85,285 with future interest at 9% p.a. secured by mortgage and hypothecation of assets. Recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus Pramila Salunke — Specific Performance | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 12.03.2022 Registered on: 26.04.2022 Decided on: 01.02.2024 Duration: Y M D 1 10 20

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.355/2022

¶3

State Bank of India,

¶4

A banking company constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and having its Corporate Office at State Bank Bhavan, Nariman Point, Madam Kama Road, Mumbai-400 021 and its Branch at Hath Khamba, NH66, Mumbai-Goa Highway, Ratnagiri415 612. Maharashtra.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mrs. Pramila Suresh Salunke, House No.928, Teliwadi, At Post Karbude, Tal. Ratnagiri, Dist. Ratnagiri-415 619.

¶8

Mr. Suresh Gangaram Salunke, House No.928, Teliwadi, At Post Karbude, Tal. Ratnagiri, Dist. Ratnagiri-415 619.

¶9

… Defendants

¶10

APPEARANCES

¶11

For the Applicant Mrs. Sudha Koloti - Advocate For Defendant No.1 Mr. Manik P. Karad – Advocate For Defendant No.2 Ex parte

(OA No.355/2022)

Page 1 of 7

[ npb ]

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.23,29,760/-

¶16

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 01^st February, 2024)

¶17

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of Rs.23,29,760/- together with future interest @10.60% p.a. with half-yearly rests thereon, in respect of Kisan Cash Credit Loan account from 11^th March, 2022 till repayment/realization of entire dues from defendant Nos.1 and 2.

¶18

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶19

The defendant No.1 borrower and defendant No.2 guarantor have approached the applicant Bank for Kisan Cash Credit Loan of Rs.10,00,000/- which was sanctioned and disbursed by the applicant Bank on 25^th October, 2013 with interest @10.60% p.a. with monthly rests.

¶20

The defendant Nos.1 and 2 executed loan transaction and security documents as mentioned in paragraph No.5.7 of the Original Application, including Hypothecation of standing Mango crop on land bearing Survey No.26 at Village Mulgaon and other equipments and also Equitable Mortgage of the said land, as mentioned in paragraph No.5.8 of the Original Application. Defendant No.2 stood as guarantor vide Deed of

(OA No.355/2022)

Page 2 of 7

[ npb ]

Guarantee dated 25^th October, 2013 for repayment of the amount due and payable by defendant No.1.

¶25

The applicant Bank contended that defendant Nos.1 and 2 executed two separate revival letters dated 29^th September, 2016 and 27^th September, 2019 and thereby admitted liability.

¶26

The applicant Bank further contended that the account of defendant was categorized as sub-standard assets, since it was not operated satisfactorily by defendants. The loan account was running irregular and defendants were reluctant to pay the outstanding amount.

¶27

Therefore, the applicant Bank through its Advocate issued Recall Notice cum invocation of Guaranteed Notice dated 23^rd March, 2021 calling upon defendants to repay the entire amount outstanding under the said Kisan Cash Credit account. However, defendants failed to comply with requisitions contained in the legal Notice and failed to repay the amount outstanding in the said loan account.

¶28

Hence, this application is filed.

¶29

Despite service of summons, defendant No.1 failed to file Written Statement. Therefore, the application proceeded without Written Statement vide `No WS Order’ and ex-parte

(OA No.355/2022)

Page 3 of 7

[ npb ]

against defendant No.2 vide Order passed on 09^th January, 2024 below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶34

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Ms. Neha Hirlekar, Branch Manager which supports the case of the applicant Bank elucidated in the application.

¶35

The applicant Bank has produced on record the original loan transaction documents (Sr.Nos.AW-1/1 to AW-1/17) which corroborate the case of the applicant Bank.

¶36

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

¶37

Since the defendants failed to file Written Statement or enter appearance 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.

¶38

The applicant Bank has claimed Penal Interest of Rs.44,475/in Kisan Cash Credit Loan account which cannot be granted and the said amount is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Thus, the total claim amount is reduced from Rs.23,29,760/to Rs.22,85,284.96Ps. (rounded off to

¶39

Rs.22,85,285/-) .

(OA No.355/2022)

Page 4 of 7

[ npb ]

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @10.60% per annum with half yearly rests for Kisan Cash Credit loan account. However, considering facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% p.a. (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶44

Hence, I pass the following order:-

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(A) Original Application No.355/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶47

(B) Defendant Nos.1 and 2 shall either jointly or severally pay to the applicant Bank towards Kisan Cash Credit Loan account the sum of Rs.22,85,285/- (Rupees Twenty-Two Lakhs Eighty-Five Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty-Five only) with future interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 12^th March, 2022 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶48

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the hypothecation of standing Mango Crop on land bearing Survey Number 26 Hissa No.3, Survey No.26,

(OA No.355/2022)

Page 5 of 7

[ npb ]

Hissa No.4B, Survey No.27, Hissa No.34+35, Survey No.27 Hissa No.40, Survey No.27 Hissa No.41 at Village-Mulgaon and also all the herds/flock/fish catch/silk worms and cocoons etc. and also tools, equipment/ fixtures/ Boars/ machines/ Tractor/ power tiller/tube well/Electric motors/diesel engines and other movables connected with and related to farming/rearing of cattle and/of flock/ fishing/sericulture, more particularly mentioned in prayer clause No.6b of the Original Application.

¶53

(D) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the mortgage or all that piece and parcel of property bearing Survey Number-26, Hissa No.3, Survey No.26, Hissa No.4B, Survey No.27, Hissa No.34+35, Survey No.27, Hissa No.40, Survey No.27, Hissa No.41 at Village Mulgaon, more particularly mentioned in prayer clause No.6a of the Original Application.

¶54

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

¶55

(F) Issue Recovery Certificate.

(OA No.355/2022)

Page 6 of 7

[ npb ]

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

¶60

Place : Pune Date : 01.02.2024

¶61

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

¶62

(OA No.355/2022)

¶63

Page 7 of 7

¶64

[ npb ]

State Bank of India v. Pramila Salunke

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Pramila Salunke

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 Rajyog Metals Prop Yogita Rajendra Shinde

Punjab National Bank versus M/S B. D. Mistry Prop Late Shri. Beheraram D Sharma

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S Maks Technologies

Union Bank of India versus Arti Agarwal

Punjab National Bank versus Pradip Pandurang Shinde

State Bank of India versus M/S. Krishna Textiles Prop. Mr. Milind Kumar Mali