Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Shashikant Barge

DRT1 Apr 2024OA/382/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune, allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of Rs.27,01,223/- plus future interest from two defendants, a borrower and a guarantor, after the defendants failed to appear. The court modified the claimed interest rate to 9% and directed realization via mortgage sale.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs.27,01,223/- plus future interest @9% p.a. from filing date; bank directed to sell mortgaged agricultural lands to recover dues.

Union Bank of India versus Shashikant Barge — Arbitration | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on : 04.01.2022 Registered on : 01.03.2022 Decided on : 01.04.2024 Duration : Y M D 02 02 27

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 382/2022.

¶3

Union Bank of India,

¶4

A Banking Company constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its head office at 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 and Branch Office at Jeevan Tara Building, (LIC) 513, Sadar Bazar, Ganpatdas Devi Path, Satara 415001.

¶5

.. Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 Shri Shashikant Dhondiram Barge, Adult, Occ. : Agriculture, R/o : Bhavaninagar, Kumthe Phata, Koregaon, Taluka Koregaon, District Satara 415501.

¶8

2 Shri Anand Yashwant Barge, Adult, Occ. : Agriculture, R/o : Shivajinagar Housing Society, Main Road, Opp. Saraswati High School, Taluka Koregaon, District Satara 415501.

.. Defendants

(OA No. 382/2022)

Page 1 of 6

Sanap

APPEARANCES

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

¶15

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.27,01,223/-

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

(Delivered on 01^st April, 2024)

¶18

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.27,01,223/- together with future interest @13.70% 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

Defendant No.1 is borrower and defendant No.2 is guarantor

¶21

for the loan facilities availed by defendant No.1. As per the loan application of defendant No.1, the applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed the following loan facilities to

¶22

defendant No.1.

¶23

Name of the facility	Amount	Date of sanction
Agriculture Term Loan	14,50,000	23.03.2016
Agriculture Term Loan	7,50,000	23.03.2016
Agriculture Term Loan	2,85,000	23.03.2016

(OA No. 382/2022)

Page 2 of 6

Sanap

Defendant No.2 stood guarantor for the repayment of loan sanctioned and disbursed to defendant No.1.

¶28

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank along with deed of hypothecation of goods and deed of mortgage of agricultural land Survey Nos. 37/7B, 42/1, 34/11, 34/3 and 37/3 situated at village Golewadi, Taluka Koregaon, District Satara, in favour of the applicant Bank. Further, defendant No.1 executed Acknowledgement of Debt/liability in favour of the applicant Bank on 28.09.2018

¶29

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Despite repeated demands for repayment of loan by the applicant Bank by personal visits and telephonically from time to time, the defendants failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank.

¶30

Hence, this application is filed.

¶31

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 25.01.2024 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

(OA No. 382/2022)

Page 3 of 6

Sanap

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Rishi Vatsa, Chief Manager and Principal Officer of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1 to AW-30 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates 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 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.

¶38

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.

¶39

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @13.70% 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.

¶40

Hence, I pass the following order :-

(OA No. 382/2022)

Page 4 of 6

Sanap

ORDER

(A) Original Application No. 382/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶46

(B) Defendant Nos.1 and 2 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.27,01,223/(Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs One Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Three only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 04.01.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶47

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage of Agricultural Lands Survey Nos. 37/7B, 42/1, 34/11, 34/3 and 37/3 situated at village Golewadi, Taluka Koregaon, District Satara, more particularly described in the Para No. 5.10 of the Original Application.

¶48

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

¶49

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

(OA No. 382/2022)

Page 5 of 6

Sanap

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

¶54

Place : Pune Date : 01.04.2024

¶55

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

¶56

(OA No. 382/2022)

¶57

Page 6 of 6

¶58

Sanap

Union Bank of India v. Shashikant Barge

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Shashikant Barge

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

Yes Bank versus Kiran Maruti Ghule

Punjab National Bank versus Vishal Shinde

Bank of India versus Shashikant Ghadge

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sunanda Meshram

Bank of Maharashtra versus Shashidhar Chavan

Federal Bank versus Sangita Hakke