Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Pooja Uttam Shinde Alias Mrs. Pooja Ajit Gaikwad

DRT5 Nov 2024OA/367/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed an original application for recovery of a housing loan default. The Debt Recovery Tribunal, ex-parte, directed payment of the principal sum plus 7.10% p.a. interest and authorized sale of mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.30,98,308/- plus 7.10% annual interest, authorization to sell mortgaged flat, and issuance of recovery certificate.

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Pooja Uttam Shinde… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on : 17.03.2022 Registered on : 13.04.2022 Decided on : 05.11.2024 Duration : Y M D 02 07 18

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 367/2022.

¶3

State Bank of India, A Corporation constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and having Head Office at Synergy State Bank Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai and its branch at – Vishrantwadi Branch, Pune and Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Second Floor, Wardhaman Building, Loves Chowk, Shankarseth Road, Pune 411042.

¶4

.. Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1 Mrs. Pooja Uttam Shinde alias Mrs. Pooja Ajit Gaikwad, Age – Adult, Occ. – Business, Add. : C/o Uttam Shinde, Kshitij Colony, Lane No.2, Jagtap Dairy, Rahatni, Pune 411017.

(OA No. 367/2022)

Page 1 of 5

Sanap

2 Mr. Ajit Uttam Gaikwad, Add. : Flat No. 103, 1^st Floor, Wing B, Vela Enclave, Survey No. 283/1, Village Lohegaon, Taluka Haveli, District Pune 411 047.

¶11

.. Defendants

¶12

APPEARANCES

¶13

For Applicant	Advocate Satyen Jagtap.
For Defendants	Exparte.

¶14

Total Claim Amount – Rs.30,98,308/-

¶15

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 05^th November, 2024)

¶16

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.30,98,308/- together with future interest @7.10% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶17

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶18

As per the loan application dated 10.08.2019 of defendant Nos.1 and 2 under Housing Loan Scheme, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Housing Loan as Medium Term Loan I facility of Rs.27,75,000/- to defendant Nos.1 and 2 vide Arrangement Letter dated 28.09.2019.

¶19

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants executed necessary loan and security documents

(OA No. 367/2022)

Page 2 of 5

Sanap

along with deed of mortgage of Flat No. 103, 1^st Floor, Wing B, Vela Enclave, Survey No. 283/1, Village Lohegaon, Taluka Haveli, District Pune, in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶24

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Hence, on 01.04.2021, 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 08.02.2022, 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. Hence, this application is filed.

¶25

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 30.04.2024 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶26

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Jagdish Mohan Nakade, Chief Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1-1 to AW-1-15 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶27

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

(OA No. 367/2022)

Page 3 of 5

Sanap

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.

¶32

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @7.10% per annum. Considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @7.10% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶33

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶34

ORDER

¶35

(A) Original Application No. 367/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶36

(B) Defendant Nos.1 and 2 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.30,98,308/(Rupees Thirty Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand Three Hundred Eight only) along with future interest @7.10% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 17.03.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶37

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage of Flat No. 103, 1^st Floor, Wing B, Vela Enclave, Survey No. 283/1, Village Lohegaon, Taluka Haveli, District Pune, more

(OA No. 367/2022)

Page 4 of 5

Sanap

particularly described in the Para No. 5.5 of the Original Application.

¶42

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged property to recover its dues.

¶43

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶44

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

¶45

Sd/(Dilip G Murumkar) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 05.11.2024 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶46

(OA No. 367/2022)

¶47

Page 5 of 5

¶48

Sanap

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Pooja Uttam Shinde Alias Mrs. Pooja Ajit Gaikwad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Pooja Uttam Shinde Alias Mrs. Pooja Ajit Gaikwad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of India versus Shree Gurukrupa Enterprises Prop. Mrs. Madhavi Dhiraj Pathare

Canara Bank versus Dshrath Kakade

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus M/S Sahyadri Drip and Sprinklers

Bank of Maharashtra versus Vijay Sapre

State Bank of India versus Juee

Idbi Bank versus Sanjay Andre