Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/s. v N. Pethe Brothers

DRT2 Jan 2024OA/394/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Pune Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Bank of Maharashtra for recovery of loans aggregating approximately Rs. 3.60 crores against a partnership firm and its partners/guarantors who failed to appear. The court adjudicated a reduced principal amount and awarded future interest at 9% p.a. secured by mortgage properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 3.50 crores with future interest @9% p.a. from date of filing, secured by mortgage properties; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/s. v. N. Pethe Brothers — Company and Corporate | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 14.12.2021 Registered on: 07.05.2022 Decided on: 02.01.2024 Duration: Y M D 2 0 19

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.394/2022

¶3

Bank of Maharashtra, A Bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 having its Head Office at “Lokmangal”, 1501, Shivajinagar, Pune-411 005 and a Branch office amongst other places known as Ratnagiri City Branch, Ratnagiri and Asset Recovery Branch, Somwar Peth, Pune-411 011.

¶4

… Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/s. V.N. Pethe Brothers, A partnership firm, Add: Shop No.1, Annapurna Complex, Laxmi Chowk, Ratnagiri415 612.

¶7

Mr. Uday Bhalchandra Pethe, Age-Adult, Occ: Business, Add: Flat No.4, Lokmanya Apartment, Tilak Lane, Ratnagiri-415 612.

¶8

Mrs. Deepa Chandrakumar Pethe, Age-Adult, Occ: Business

(OA No.394/2022)

Page 1 of 12

[ npb ]

Add: Flat No.S-9, Balasaheb Kher Sankul, Tilak Lane, Ratnagiri-415 612.

¶13

Mr. Prasanna Prasad Pethe, Age-Adult, Occ: Business Add:

¶14

a) “Chandraprabha”, Thiba Palace Road, Ratnagiri-415 612.

¶15

b) Flat No.303, Sagar Darshan Apartment, Near Chandrashekhar Lassi, Thiba Palace Road, Ratnagiri-415 612.

¶16

Mr. Prafulla Prasad Pethe, Age-Adult, Occ: Business Add: “Chandraprabha”, Thiba Palace Road, Ratnagiri-415 612.

¶17

Mr. Prasad Bhalchandra Pethe, Age-Adult, Occ: Business Add: “Chandraprabha”, Thiba Palace Road, Ratnagiri-415 612.

¶18

Mr. Bhalchandra Naraso Pethe (Since deceased, through his Legal Heirs): 7.(a) Mr. Prasad Bhalchandra Pethe, Age: Adult, Occ: Business, Add: “Chandraprabha”, Thiba Palace Road, Ratnagiri-415 612.

¶19

7.(b) Mr. Uday Bhalchandra Pethe, Age: Adult, Occ: Business, Add: Flat No.4, Lokmanya Apartment, Tilak Lane, Ratnagiri-415 612.

… Defendants

(OA No.394/2022)

Page 2 of 12

[ npb ]

APPEARANCES

For the Applicant	Mr. Satyan	Jagtap - Advocate
For Defendants	Exparte

¶26

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.3,60,91,746.93Ps.

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

(Delivered on 02^nd January, 2024)

¶29

The Applicant Bank has filed the present Application for

¶30

recovery of aggregate sum of Rs.3,60,91,746.93Ps. i.e. Rs.1,47,00,137.18Ps. in respect of MKCC (converted to ATL facility) loan account together with interest @12.15% p.a. with yearly rests; Rs.1,99,23,386.00Ps. towards New MKCC loan account together with interest @11.90% p.a. with yearly rests and Rs.14,68,223.75Ps. towards Term Loan account together with interest @10.85% p.a. with monthly rests along with penal interest @2%p.a. thereon from 07^th December, 2021 till full repayment/realization of entire dues from respective defendants.

¶31

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶32

The defendant No.1 is a Partnership Firm engaged in the business of Mango cultivation and trading. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 are its partners. Defendant No.6 is the guarantor and mortgagor for the credit facilities advanced to

(OA No.394/2022)

Page 3 of 12

[ npb ]

defendant No.1 Firm by the applicant Bank. Defendant No.7 (deceased) was initially the partner of defendant No.1 who is represented through his Legal Heirs.

¶37

In the year 2011, the defendant No.1 approached the applicant Bank for MKCC facility for Mango cultivation. The applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed the MKCC facility of Rs.105 Lakhs on 02^nd June, 2011, with interest @14% p.a. with yearly rests.

¶38

Defendant No.1 signed and executed loan transaction and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank as mentioned in paragraph Nos.5.6 of the Original Application, including Registered Mortgage created by defendant No.6 and deceased defendant No.7 in respect of immovable properties mentioned in paragraph No.5.8 of the Original Application.

¶39

Defendant Nos.2, 3, 4, 6 & deceased defendant No.7 stood as guarantors for the said MKCC facility.

¶40

The applicant Bank further contended that defendant No.1 Firm vide loan application dated 20^th July, 2015 requested for fresh MKCC facility of Rs.105 Lakhs was which was sanctioned on 27^th August, 2015. Defendant No.1

(OA No.394/2022)

Page 4 of 12

[ npb ]

Firm and defendant Nos.2 to 5 executed necessary documents as set out in paragraph No.5.15 of the Original Application.

¶45

The applicant Bank further contended that due to natural calamity, the defendant No.1 could not repay the installments in MKCC facility and therefore, the said MKCC facility of Rs.105 Lakhs was converted into Agriculture Term Loan facility on 08^th September, 2015 on request from defendant No.1 Firm.

¶46

The applicant Bank further contended that on 20^th December, 2016 defendant No.1 Firm again approached the applicant Bank for Term Loan facility of Rs.20.97 Lakhs for Renovation of shop premises & installation of new furniture & electronic items which was sanctioned and disbursed on 07^th January, 2017. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 stood as guarantors in their personal capacity for the said Term Loan facility. Defendants executed necessary loan transaction and security documents as set out in paragraph No.5.21 of the Original Application.

¶47

The applicant Bank further contended that defendant No.1 has admitted its liability by letter dated 8^th September,

(OA No.394/2022)

Page 5 of 12

[ npb ]

2015 in Cash Credit loan account.

¶52

Defendant Nos.1 to 5 have also executed Balance and Security Confirmation Letter dated 16^th August, 2018 acknowledging the liabilities towards MKCC (converted to ATL) and fresh MKCC loan accounts. On 06^th January, 2020, they have also acknowledged the liabilities towards Term Loan account.

¶53

The applicant Bank further contended that defendants failed and neglected to comply with terms and conditions of Sanction and their accounts were running irregular and defendants were reluctant to pay the amounts. Therefore, the account of defendant No.1 Firm became NonPerforming Asset on 25^th April, 2019.

¶54

Thereafter, the applicant Bank through its Advocate issued Legal Notice on 06^th October, 2020 calling upon defendant Nos.1 to 7 to repay the entire outstanding dues in all the loan accounts. However, defendants failed to repay the amounts outstanding in their loan accounts.

¶55

Hence, this application is filed.

¶56

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex parte against them

(OA No.394/2022)

Page 6 of 12

[ npb ]

vide order dated 07^th February, 2023 passed below the application (Exhibit-1).

¶61

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Anand Suman, Chief Manager and Branch Head, which supports the case of the applicant Bank elucidated in the application.

¶62

The applicant Bank has produced on record the original loan transaction documents (Sr.Nos.AW-1/1 to AW-1/41) which corroborate the case of the applicant Bank.

¶63

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

¶64

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.

¶65

The applicant Bank has claimed Simple Penal Interest of Rs.4,68,289/- in MKCC account; Rs.5,20,629/- in New MKCC account and Rs.24,353.93Ps. in Term Loan account totaling to Rs.10,13,271.93Ps. which cannot be granted and the said amount is deducted from the respective total claim amounts. As a result, the aggregate claim amount is also

(OA No.394/2022)

Page 7 of 12

[ npb ]

reduced to Rs.3,60,91,746.93Ps. to Rs.3,50,78,475/-.

¶70

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @12.15% p.a. with yearly rests for MKCC loan account; @11.90% p.a. with yearly rests for New MKCC loan account and @10.85% p.a. with monthly rests. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% p.a. for all the three loan accounts, it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶71

Hence, I pass the following order:-

¶72

ORDER

¶73

(A) Original Application No.394/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶74

(B) Defendant Nos.1 to 6, 7(a), 7(b) & 7(c) shall either jointly or severally pay to the applicant Bank towards MKCC facility (converted to ATL facility) loan account a sum of Rs.1,42,31,848/- (Rupees One Crore Forty-Two Lakhs Thirty-One Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty-Eight only) with future interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 14^th December, 2021 till full realization of the amount mentioned in this

(OA No.394/2022)

Page 8 of 12

[ npb ]

operative order.

(C) Defendant Nos.1 to 5 shall either jointly or severally pay to the applicant Bank towards New MKCC facility loan account a sum of Rs.1,94,02,757/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety-Four Lakhs Two Thousand Seven Hundred and FiftySeven only) with future interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 14^th December, 2021 till full realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶80

(D) Defendant Nos.1 to 5 shall either jointly or severally pay to the applicant Bank towards Term Loan account a sum of Rs.14,43,870/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Forty-Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy only) with future interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 14^th December, 2021 till full realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶81

(E) The aforesaid adjudicated amounts are secured by the mortgage of immovable properties being 1) All that piece and parcel of land Survey

(OA No.394/2022)

Page 9 of 12

[ npb ]

No.271A1A1A1A1A1A, Hissa No.3/10 area H 0.02.26 R Khalsa H 0.02.74 R Total H 0.05.30 R bearing CTS No.400A/3, Old Survey No.271A1A1A Hissa No.3 Paiki Municipal House No.544P and 544P1 Mouje Zadgaon, Mu. Aat, Ratnagiri, Tal. And Dist. Ratnagiri (owned by Mr. Bhalchandra Naraso Pethe (deceased) & Mr. Chandrakumar Bhalchandra Pethe);

¶86

Land at Village Parchuri, TalukaSangameshwar, Dist. Ratnagiri in various Survey Nos. as mentioned below and total admeasuring 32.39.00 Hectares:

¶87

Sr. No.	Survey No.	Hissa No.	Area
1	100	23	0-06-00 + 0.02.00
2	101	24	0-15-00 + 0.05.00
3	108	33	0-37-00
4	109	5a	0-57-00 + 1.16.00 (Potkharaba)
5	109	7a	0-36-00 + 0.34.00
6	12	1	0-41-00 + 0.05.00
7	133	1	0-69-00 + 0.08.00
8	135	41	0-09-00
9	138	14	0-65-00 + 0.20.00
10	15	2	0-10-10

(OA No.394/2022)

Page 10 of 12

[ npb ]

11	165	1a	3-95-10 + 1.07.60
12	165	18	0-50-00 + 0.11.00 (Potkharaba)
13	165	19	0-20-00 + 0.03.00
14	165	9	0-45-00 + 0.02.00
15	166	4	0-27-00 + 0.03.00
16	166	9	0-22-00 + 0.04.00
17	21	4	0-29-90
18	29	3	0-12-4
19	6	7	0-12-00 + 0.04.00
20	7	8	0-07-60
21	99	26	0-51-00 + 0.06.00
22	119	11	0-38-0
23	9	3	0-87-9
24	120	3	1-62-0
25	167	11	0-81-0
26	147	9	1-10-0
27	147	24	0-08-0
28	147	24	0-08-0
29	147	32	0-02-0
30	147	33	0-16-0
31	147	38	0-10-0
32	147	40+41	0-24-0
33	147	50	0-24-0
34	147	60	0-06-0
35	142	2A	0-19-0
36	99	11	0-93-0
37	144	36	0-42-0
38	143	13	0-49-0
39	127	26	0-28-00
40	2	1	0-89-10

(OA No.394/2022)

Page 11 of 12

[ npb ]

41	107	6+25	2.31.00 + 0-43.00
42	125	12A	0-63-00
43	138	11A	0-00-20
44	138	6A	0-35-00 + 0-12.00
45	156	7	0-50-00 + 1-50-00
46	17	8	0-07-80
47	23	6	0-12-10
48	24	2	0-14-30 + 0-01-00
49	24	5	0-37-30
50	24	8	0-06-30
51	7	2+3	0-24-20
52	97	1	0-05-10
53	122	2	0-72-50 + 0-22-00

¶96

more particularly mentioned in paragraph No.5.8 of the Original Application.

¶97

(F) The applicant is entitled to sell the mortgaged properties to recover its dues.

¶98

(G) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶99

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

¶100

Sd/-

¶101

Place : Pune Date : 02.01.2024

¶102

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

¶103

(OA No.394/2022)

¶104

Page 12 of 12

¶105

[ npb ]

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/s. v N. Pethe Brothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/s. v N. Pethe Brothers

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

Punjab National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus Mr. Shrinivas Nagesh Alle Prop M/S Pranoti Packaging

Federal Bank versus Rajamram

Bank of India versus Rohit Chaskar

Uco Bank versus Ravindra Thombare

Central Bank of India versus Gorakh

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Deepak Balu Jadhav, Prop. M/S D.H. Communication