Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Sunanda Meshram

DRT1 Apr 2024OA/387/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original recovery application filed by Bank of Maharashtra against four defendants for an agriculture term loan default, the DtRT allowed the claim ex parte as defendants failed to appear, granting recovery of principal with future interest at 9% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs.43,87,837/- with future interest at 9% p.a. from 28/01/2022; issuance of Recovery Certificate; right to sell mortgaged property.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sunanda Meshram — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 28.01.2022 Registered on: 10.03.2022 Decided on: 01.04.2024 Duration: Y M D 2 2 4

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer)

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.387/2022

¶4

Bank of Maharashtra

¶5

A Banking Company incorporated under The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act V of 1970 having it’s Head Office at “Lokmangal” 1501, Shivajinagar, Pune – 5 and one of its branch office at – Shiv Bazar Peth, Malgund, Taluka & District Ratnagiri amongst other places at Malgund Branch, Taluka & District Ratnagiri.

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mrs. Sunanda Chandramani Meshram Adult, Occ: Agriculture, R/o – Astha Swaroopnand Vasahat, At & Post Khedshi, Tal. & District - Ratnagiri 415 615.

¶9

Mr. Chandramani Antuji Meshram Adult, Occ: Agriculture, R/o – Astha Swaroopnand Vasahat, At & Post Khedshi, Taluka & District - Ratnagiri

(OA No.387/2022)

Page 1 of 6

[KAUR]

415 615.

3 Mr. Pramod Parshuram Salvi Adult, Occ: Agriculture, R/at – Nivendi Varchi, At & Post Khedshi, Tal. & District – Ratnagiri – 415 615.

¶15

Mr. Aloysius Albert Lobo Adult, Occ: Service, R/at – At & Post Pali, Taluka & District – Ratnagiri – 415 615.

¶16

…Defendants

¶17

APPEARANCES

¶18

For the Applicant	Mr. Ramesh B.	Ganbote - Advocate
For Defendants	Exparte

¶19

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.43,87,837/-

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

(Delivered on 1^st April, 2024)

¶22

The applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.43,87,837/- together with future interest thereon @12% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of filing the Application i.e.28^th January, 2022 till repayment/realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶23

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶24

In or about November, 2007 defendant Nos.1 and 2 as principal borrowers approached the applicant Bank seeking financial assistance in the form of Agriculture Term Loan for plantation of Mango Grafts. As per the loan application, applicant Bank on 20^th December, 2007 sanctioned and

(OA No.387/2022)

Page 2 of 6

[KAUR]

disbursed the Agriculture Term Loan of Rs.12,00,000/- to defendant Nos.1 and 2. Defendant No.3 and one Krishna Sonu Palkar stood as guarantors for the said credit facility.

¶29

In order to secure the credit facility, defendant Nos.1 to 3 and Krishna Sonu Palkar executed necessary loan transaction and security documents including Hypothecation Agreement and Equitable Mortgage in respect of immovable property in favour of the applicant Bank as set out in the Original Application.

¶30

It is further contended that defendant Nos.1 and 2 agreed to repay the Agriculture Term Loan by seven yearly installments of Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.1,75,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.2,25,000/-, Rs.2,50,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/- and last installment of Rs.3,42,000/plus interest. Further, Krishna Sonu Palkar expired and hence, defendant No.4 offered himself as guarantor for the loan availed by defendant Nos.1 and 2. On 1^st January, 2011 defendant No.4 executed Guarantee Agreement in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶31

It is further contended by the applicant Bank that defendants have acknowledged the liability of repayment of loan by executing Balance and Security Confirmation Letters dated 30^th December, 2013, 27^th December, 2016 and 30^th January, 2019.

¶32

After availing and utilizing credit facility, defendant

(OA No.387/2022)

Page 3 of 6

[KAUR]

borrowers failed to repay the loan amount as per terms of sanction. Consequently, account of defendant Nos.1 and 2 was classified at Non-Performing Asset as per Reserve Bank of India norms.

¶37

On 14^th January, 2022 the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendants and called upon them to pay the outstanding amount. Despite service of Notice, defendants failed and neglected to comply with the demand in the said Notice.

¶38

Hence, this application is filed.

¶39

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex parte against them vide Order dated 25^th January, 2024 passed below the Application (Exhibit01).

¶40

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Deepak Bharti, Principal Officer and relied upon the original loan transaction and security documents at Sr.Nos.AW-1/1 to AW-1/20 produced along with List (Exhibit7) which corroborate the case of the applicant Bank.

¶41

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

¶42

Since the defendants failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of the

(OA No.387/2022)

Page 4 of 6

[KAUR]

applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for reliefs as claimed.

¶47

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @12% per annum with monthly rests. However, considering the facts of the present 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.

¶48

Hence, I pass the following order:-

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(A) Original Application No.387/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶51

(B) Defendant Nos.1 to 4 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant bank the sum of Rs.43,87,837/(Rupees Forty-Three Lakhs Eighty-Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty-Seven only) with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 28^th January, 2022 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶52

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage immovable property i.e. All that piece and parcel of Gat No./Survey No.84-1/1A admeasuring 06 Hector 47 Aar at Village

(OA No.387/2022)

Page 5 of 6

[KAUR]

Nivendi, Taluka-Ratnagiri, within the limits of Registration District Ratnagiri.

¶57

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

¶58

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶59

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

¶60

Sd/(Dilip G Murumkar) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date: 01.04.2024 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune

¶61

(OA No.387/2022)

¶62

Page 6 of 6

¶63

[KAUR]

Bank of Maharashtra v. Sunanda Meshram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Sunanda Meshram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

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

Union Bank of India versus Shashikant Barge

Bank of Maharashtra versus Shashidhar Chavan

Federal Bank versus Sangita Hakke