Allowed

Canara Bank v. Digambar Ghayal

DRT17 Aug 2024OA/457/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's orignal application for recovery of Rs 30.94 lakhs comprising term loans and a KCC facility. The court reduced future interest to 9% and ruled for the sale of mortgaged properties and issuance of a recovery certificate against the defendants who appeared ex parte.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly or severally to pay Rs 28.14 lakhs (Term Loan) and Rs 2.80 lakhs (KCC) with 9% future interest; mortgaged property directed to be sold; Recovery Certificate issued.

Canara Bank versus Digambar Ghayal — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 02.09.2022 Registered on: 12..09.2023 Decided on: 17.08.2024 Duration: Y M D 1 11 15

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.457/2023

¶3

Canara Bank

¶4

A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Head Office at 112 JC Road, Bangalore, Karnataka and one of its Branch Office amongst other places at Shivram Delux, Shivaji Chowk, Chouphala, Pandharpur, District – Solapur.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Shri Digambar Nagnath Ghayal Adult, Occ: Agriculture R/at – Ghayalvasti, At & Post Kosegaon, Tal – Pandharpur, District – Solapur - 413 304.

¶8

Shri Samadhan Tukaram Ghayal Adult, Occ: Agriculture R/at – Ghayalvasti, At & Post Kosegaon, Tal – Pandharpur, District – Solapur - 413 304.

…Defendants

(OA No.457/2023)

Page 1 of 7

[KAUR]

APPEARANCES

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

¶15

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.30,94,484/-

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

(Delivered on 17^th August, 2024)

¶18

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of aggregate sum of Rs.30,94,484/- i.e. Rs.28,14,109/(Term Loan-I & II) together with future interest thereon @13.35% per annum with half yearly rests and Rs.2,80,375/(KCC) together with future interest thereon @11.25% per annum with half yearly rests, from 2^nd September, 2022 till repayment/realization of entire dues from the defendants.

¶19

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶20

In or about September, 2016, defendant No.1 approached the applicant Bank seeking financial assistance in the form of Term Loan for Land Development and Grape Plantation. After due consideration the applicant Bank on 13^th October, 2016 sanctioned and disbursed the Term Loan-I of Rs.12 Lakhs to defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 stood as guarantor for the said facility.

¶21

Defendants agreed the terms of sanction and executed necessary loan transaction documents in favour of the

(OA No.457/2023)

Page 2 of 7

[KAUR]

applicant Bank as set out in Paragraph No.5.5 and 5.6 of the Original Application. In order to secure the said facility, defendant No.1 executed Simple Mortgage Deed and mortgaged the immovable property described in Paragraph No.5.8 of the Original Application in favour of the applicant Bank. Further, defendant No.1 agreed to repay the Term Loan by six (6) yearly installments of Rs.2,21,513/- plus interest.

¶26

Subsequently, in or about January, 2017 defendant No.1 again approached the applicant Bank and requested for Term LoanII of Rs.8 Lakhs for Farm Pond which was sanctioned by applicant Bank on 2^nd February, 2017. Defendant No.2 also stood guarantor for the said facility. Defendants executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank as set out in Paragraph No.5.13 of the Original Application. Defendant No.1 executed Simple Mortgage Deed and mortgaged the immovable property described in Paragraph No.5.16 of the Original Application in favour of the applicant Bank. Further, defendant No.1 agreed to repay the Term Loan-II by six (6) yearly installments of Rs.1,42,825/plus interest.

¶27

Thereafter, in the month of April, 2017 defendant No.1 again approached the applicant Bank and requested for Kisan

(OA No.457/2023)

Page 3 of 7

[KAUR]

Credit Card for crop cultivation. The applicant Bank considered the said request and on 24^th April, 2017 sanctioned and disbursed the KCC of Rs.3 Lakhs to defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank as set out in Paragraph No.5.21 of the Original Application.

¶32

It is contended by the applicant Bank that defendants acknowledged the liability from time to time in all the loan accounts by executing Acknowledgement of Debt and Security letters. Further, the defendant No.1 failed to pay the installments and interest in both the Term Loan accounts and KCC and breached the terms and conditions of sanction . Consequently, the accounts of defendant No.1 were classified as Non-Performing Asset as per Reserve Bank of India norms. The defendants failed to repay the outstanding amounts, hence this application is filed.

¶33

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex parte against them vide Order dated 22^nd April, 2024 passed below the Application (Exhibit-01).

¶34

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Mohan Madhukar Dadas, Senior Manager

(OA No.457/2023)

Page 4 of 7

[KAUR]

which supports the case of the applicant elucidated in the application.

¶39

The applicant Bank has produced on record the original loan transaction and security documents at Sr.Nos.AW-1/1 to AW-1/18 which corroborate the case of the applicant Bank.

¶40

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

¶41

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.

¶42

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.

¶43

Hence, I pass the following order:-

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(A) Original Application No.457/2023 is allowed with costs.

¶46

(B) Defendant Nos.1 and 2 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank towards the Term Loan-I & II the sum of Rs.28,14,109/- (Rupees Twenty-Eight Lakhs Fourteen Thousand One

(OA No.457/2023)

Page 5 of 7

[KAUR]

Hundred and Nine only) with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 2^nd September, 2022 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶51

(C) Defendant No.1 shall pay to the applicant Bank towards the KCC the sum of Rs.2,80,375/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy-Five only) with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 2^nd September, 2022 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶52

(D) The aforesaid adjudicated amounts are secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage immovable property i.e. All that piece and parcel of Gat No.1771/2/B (P) admeasuring 00 Hector 76 Aar, Gat No.1779/2 admeasuring 00 Hector 62 Aar and Gat No.1768 admeasuring 00 Hector 89 Aar at Village Kasegaon, Taluka – Pandharpur, within the limits of Registration District Solapur, Sub Registration District Pandharpur-1, District –

(OA No.457/2023)

Page 6 of 7

[KAUR]

Solapur.

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

¶58

(F) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶59

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

¶60

Place : Pune Date: 17.08.2024

¶61

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

¶62

(OA No.457/2023)

¶63

Page 7 of 7

¶64

[KAUR]

Canara Bank v. Digambar Ghayal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Digambar Ghayal

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 India versus Arjun Khade

Bank of India versus Riyaz Patkan

Canara Bank versus Chandrakant Bandgar

Bank of Maharashtra versus Dada Pawar

Saraswat Cooperative Bank Limited versus Idfc First Bank Ltd.

Hdfc Bank versus Mr. Vitthal Shankar Ranavade, Prop. Laxmi Enterprises