Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/S Ajinkya Stationers Prop Mr. Satyajeet Parashuram Gokhale

DRT22 Oct 2024OA/405/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune allowed the application filed by Bank of Maharashtra. The respondents failed to appear, and based on uncontroverted evidence of default on a cash credit facility, the Tribunal decreed payment of principal dues along with future interest at 9% simple interest per annum, securing the amount against mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to jointly or severally pay Rs. 65,18,109/- along with future interest @9% per annum; recovery secured by mortgage of shop and issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S Ajinkya Stationers Prop Mr… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on : 12.01.2022 Registered on : 26.04.2022 Decided on : 22.10.2024 Duration : Y M D 02 09 10

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 405/2022.

¶3

Bank of Maharashtra, Having Head office at “Lokmangal”, Shivajinagar, Pune and having office at Balaji Bhavan, Opp. Bhaji Market, Panvel 410 206.

¶4

.. Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1 M/s. Ajinkya Stationers, A sole proprietary concern of Mr. Satyajeet Parashuram Ghokhale, Shop No. 1, Vasanta Arpit -11, Tilak Road, Panvel, District Raigad.

¶7

2 Mr. Prashant Joma Patil, Jeevan Sagar CHS Limited, P-L 5, B Wing, Bldg No. 2, Room No. 8, Sector 10, Khanda Colony, New Panvel, District Raigad.

¶8

3 Mr. Anil Ramachandra Joshi, Bldg. No. 4/A/11, Ashapura CHS Limited, Behind Panchatantra Hotel, Panvel, District Raigad.

.. Defendants

(OA No. 405/2022)

Page 1 of 5

Sanap

APPEARANCES

For Applicant Advocate Priti Bhat. For Defendants Absent.

¶15

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.65,18,109/-

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

(Delivered on 22^nd October, 2024)

¶18

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.65,18,109/- together with future interest at the contractual rate [email protected]% 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 a sole proprietary concern of Mr. Satyajeet Parashuram Ghokhale and is the principal borrower and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are guarantors for defendant No.1. As per the loan application of the defendants, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Cash Credit of Rs.64,00,000/- to defendant No.1 vide Sanction Letter dated 06.05.2019.

¶21

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants executed necessary loan and security documents along with deed of mortgage of Shop No.1, Vasanta Arpit II,

(OA No. 405/2022)

Page 2 of 5

Sanap

Tilak Road, Panvel, District Raigad, in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶26

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Hence, 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 07.01.2021, 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.

¶27

The defendants failed to file written statement. Hence, the application proceeded without written statement as per Order dated 02.02.2024 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶28

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Pinky Rani, Assistant General Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1 to AW-10 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶29

I have heard arguments of the learned Advocate for the

(OA No. 405/2022)

Page 3 of 5

Sanap

applicant Bank.

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest at the contractual rate i.e. @12.20% 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.

¶37

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(A) Original Application No. 405/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶40

(B) Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.65,18,109/-

¶41

(Rs. Sixty Five Lakhs Eighteen Thousand One

(OA No. 405/2022)

Page 4 of 5

Sanap

Hundred Nine only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 12.01.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶46

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the mortgage of Shop No.1, Vasanta Arpit II, Tilak Road, Panvel, District Raigad, more particularly described in the Para No. 3-A of the Original Application.

¶47

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

¶48

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶49

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

¶50

Sd/(Dilip G Murumkar) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 22.10.2024 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶51

(OA No. 405/2022)

¶52

Page 5 of 5

¶53

Sanap

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/S Ajinkya Stationers Prop Mr. Satyajeet Parashuram Gokhale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/S Ajinkya Stationers Prop Mr. Satyajeet Parashuram Gokhale

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 Shinde Building Material Suppliers, Prop. Shashikant Vishwanath Shinde

Yes Bank versus Siraj Ismail Shekh

Indian Bank versus Hasina Inamdar

Hdfc Bank versus Vijay Sambhaji Gunware

Union Bank of India versus Shaji Puthenpurackal

Bank of Maharashtra versus Prasad Khutwad