Allowed

State Bank of India v. Madan Ramkishan Ghule

DRT4 Jan 2024OA/408/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of a home loan due from the borrower and guarantor. Defendants failed to file defenses. Bank proved the loan, default, and security interests. Award includes principal sum with interest and rights to proceed against properties.

What did the court decide?

Joint and several liability imposed to pay Rs. 23,36,168/- with interest; entitlement to proceed against mortgaged and hypothecated properties and persons of defendants. Recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus Madan Ramkishan Ghule — Insurance | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 05/08/2022 Registered on: 10/10/2022 Decided on: 04/01/2024 Duration: Y M Ds 1 – 5 - 00

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL at Aurangabad.

¶3

Original Application No. 408 of 2022

¶4

State Bank of India,

¶5

a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, having its Local head Office at Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 and one of its branch Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Aurangabad at Plot No. 1, Ground Floor, Administrative Building, Town Centre, N-5, CIDCO, Aurangabad, through its authorized signatory Shri Sunil Dutt, Deputy Manager & City Case Officer.

¶6

….Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1. Mr Madan Ramkishan Ghule,

¶9

age 49 years occup. agri. & business MCH No. 3849 (old) 654 (new) Sy. No. 128, Plot No. 12 Shivaji Nagar, Jintur Tal. Jintur Dist. Parbhani - 431509 Mobile No. 9423444997 A N D

¶10

at village Manmodi Tal. Jintur Dist. Parbhani – 431 509

¶11

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 408/2022) Page 1 of 6

¶12

Mr Vasant Bhimrao Admane, age 49 years occup. service, Shivaji Nagar, Jintur Tal. Jintur Dist. Parbhani – 431 509 … Defendants

¶13

APPEARANCES :

¶14

For Applicant : Mrs. Archana Karadkhedkar - Advocate

¶15

For Defendant No.1 Mr A.R. Nikam, Advocate

¶16

For Defendant No.2 Ex parte

¶17

Shri Vimal Gupta, Presiding Officer .

¶18

Pronounced on : 4^th January 2024

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The applicant-bank filed the present original application

¶21

against defendants No.1/borrower & Deft. No.2/guarantor for

¶22

recovery of sum of Rs. 23,36,168/- (Rs. twenty three lakhs thirty six thousand one hundred sixty eight only) towards outstanding of home loan accounts availed by them on 04/04/2013, with future interest @7.80% p.a., with monthly

¶23

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 408/2022) Page 2 of 6

¶24

rests, from 16/06/2022 till the date of realization and, in default, for sale of the mortgaged and hypothecated properties, as described in the Orig. Application. It is pleaded that the defendants availed the home loan facility of Rs. 20.00 lakhs and funding of home loan insurance cover facility of Rs. 1,27,400/on 04/04/2013 on execution of relevant documents to secure the loan amount in favour of applicant-bank and on acceptance of terms and conditions to repay it with interest @ 9.95% p.a. with monthly rests, however, they failed to follow the repayment programme as assured and consequently the loan account converted into NPA on 16/12/2017 and demand notice was issued on 13/06/2022 and legal demand notice on 23/06/2022 to which the defendants did not give any response. It is pleaded that in the meantime, the defendants deposited the amounts from time to time by cash and lastly deposited Rs. 99,555/- in home loan account on 28/09/2020 and Rs. 5000/- on 14/05/2020 in funding of home loan insurance cover facility account. Thus,

¶25

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 408/2022) Page 3 of 6

¶26

though the defendants availed sufficient period to repay the outstanding loan amounts, they failed to repay it, which resulted into filing of the present Orig. Application to recover the amount due against them.

¶27

In pursuance to summons of the Orig. Application, defendant No.1 appeared in the matter but failed to file his written statement within time and, as such, it was not taken on record. Defendant No.2 though served with summons by hand/personally, he preferred to remain absent and therefore, the Orig. Application proceeded ex parte against him.

¶28

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶29

The point that arises for consideration is, whether the applicant-bank is entitled for the claim made in the Orig. Application against the defendants, as prayed for ?

¶30

The applicant-bank filed evidence on affidavit (Exh.4) along with list of documents (Exh.5) annexing therewith 12 documents, which are marked as Exh.A.W.2 to A.W. 12 on

¶31

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 408/2022) Page 4 of 6

¶32

behalf of applicant, which clinches the claim of the applicantbank against both the defendants. (Document at Ser.No.1 being copy of Notification, not exhibited.) Moreover, in view of the fact that the averments in the Original Application have gone unrebutted, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the applicant-bank is entitled for the prayers made therein. Further more, perusal of the documents on record shows that the application is filed within limitation. Hence I hold that both the defendants are liable to pay to applicant-bank the claim amount claimed in the Orig. Application with future reasonable interest considering meantime Covid-Pandeic-19 long period and costs.

¶33

In the result, the present Orig. Application No. 408 of 2022 is allowed with costs, as under:

¶34

(A) Defendants No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay sum of Rs. 23,36,168/- (Rs. twenty three lakhs thirty six thousand one hundred sixty eight only) with future interest @ 6 (six) % p.a., simple, from 16/06/2022 till the date of realization.

¶35

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 408/2022) Page 5 of 6

¶36

(B) The applicant-bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged and hypothecated properties, as described in the Orig. Application towards realization of their dues;

¶37

(C) The applicant-bank is entitled to proceed against the person and properties of both the defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶38

(D) The applicant bank is entitled to the costs of the Original Application.

¶39

(E) The applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶40

(F) Issue recovery certificate.

¶41

(G) Communicate copy of the order to the parties concerned Order be uploaded on the official website.

¶42

( Vimal Gupta ) PRESIDING OFFICER, Aurangabad, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, Date: 04/01/2024 A urangabad

¶43

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 408/2022) Page 6 of 6

State Bank of India v. Madan Ramkishan Ghule

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Madan Ramkishan Ghule

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

Nikhil Manik Gawali versus Motilal Oswal Home Finance Limited

Canara Bank versus Shree Gajanan Industries

State Bank of India versus Shri Gangadhar Chillarge

Shrikant Govind Murtadak versus Sahakarmaharshi Bhausaheb Thorat Amrutvahini Sahakari Bank Ltd.

State Bank of India (Sarb) versus Mahendra

State Bank of India versus Manisha Nilkanth Khedkar