Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Bharat

DRT16 Apr 2024OA/483/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DhRT allowed an application for recovery of loan dues totaling Rs.57,06,934/- plus future interest against borrowers and guarantors who failed to appear. The court reduced the claimed future interest to 9% per annum and directed the issue of a recovery certificate. The claim for realization of specific mortgaged and hypothecated properties was rejected as it was not claimed in the original app

What did the court decide?

Recovery of principal amounts with future interest @9% per annum; Issue of Recovery Certificate; Relief regarding mortgaged/hypothecated properties denied.

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

¶1

Presented on: 28.07.2021 Registered on: 13.06.2022 Decided on: 16.04.2024 Duration: Y M D 2 8 19

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.483/2022

¶4

Bank of Maharashtra

¶5

A Body Corporate established under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 19070 having its registered office at “Lokmangal”, 1501 Shivajinagar, Pune – 411 005 and one of its branch office at Atpadi Branch, District Sangli.

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr. Bharat Maruti Patil Age – 53 years, Occ: Farmer/Business R/at: A/p Gavarchich Mala, Atpadi, Sangli – 415 301.

¶9

Mr. Duryodhan Balkrishna Patil Age – 53 years, R/at: 1976, Gavarchich Mala at Village Kala Mala, Atpadi, Tal. Atpadi, Dist. Sangli 415 301.

¶10

Mr. Muralidhar Appaso Patil Age : 55 years R/at: A/p Gavarchich Mala, Atpadi,

(OA No.483/2022)

Page 1 of 7

[KAUR]

Sangli – 415 301.

Mr. Vinayak Balkrishna Patil Age: 43 years, R/at: A/p Gavarchich Mala, Atpadi, Sangli – 415 301.

¶16

Mrs. Seema Rajendra Holkar Age : 31 years, Occupation – Business R/at: A/p Vitthalpur, Atpadi, Sangli. …Defendants

¶17

APPEARANCES

¶18

For the Applicant Mr. Ashok Tamboli - Advocate For Defendants Ex parte

¶19

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.57,06,934/-

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

(Delivered on 16^th April, 2024)

¶22

The applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of aggregate sum of Rs.57,06,934/- i.e. Rs.5,14,817/(Agri. Term Loan) together with future interest @12.40% per annum with monthly rests and Rs.51,92,117/- (Term Loan) together with future interest @11.95% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of the Application i.e.28^th July, 2021 till repayment/realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶23

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶24

In or about November, 2014 defendant No.1 approached the applicant Bank seeking financial assistance by way of Agri. Term Loan for the purpose of purchase of Tractor. As

(OA No.483/2022)

Page 2 of 7

[KAUR]

per the request of defendant No.1 the applicant Bank on 20^th November, 2014 sanctioned and disbursed the Agri. Term Loan facility of Rs.5,80,000/- to the defendant. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 stood as guarantors for the said facility.

¶29

Further, the defendants executed necessary loan transaction and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank as set out in Paragraph No.5.3 of the Original Application. In order to secure the said facility, the defendant No.1 also hypothecated LMV Tractor bearing Registration No.MH 10 AY 9939 in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶30

Subsequently, in the year 2017 defendant No.1 again approached the applicant Bank and requested for Term Loan facility of Rs.1 Crore. The applicant Bank considered the said request and on 3^rd October, 2017 sanctioned the Term Loan of Rs.1 Crore to defendant No.1. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 stood as guarantors for the said facility.

¶31

Defendants executed necessary loan transaction and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank as set out in paragraph No.5.4 of the Original Application. The defendant No.1 executed Registered Mortgage in favour the applicant Bank and mortgaged the immovable property i.e. land bearing S.No.641, admeasuring 7.13 Ha lying at Village

(OA No.483/2022)

Page 3 of 7

[KAUR]

Lengarewadi, Tal. Atpadi, District Sangli more particularly described in Paragraph No.5.7 of the Original Application.

¶36

It is further contended by the applicant Bank that defendants have acknowledged the liability of repayment of loans in both the loan accounts by executing Balance and Security Confirmation Letters dated 19^th November, 2017 and 23^rd October, 2020 respectively.

¶37

After availing and utilizing credit facilities, defendants failed and neglected to repay the loan amounts. Hence, on 2^nd March, 2020 the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendants and called upon the defendants 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 12^th February, 2024 passed below the Application (Exhibit-01).

¶40

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Pratik Shrikant Kashikar, Chief Manager which supports the case of the applicant elucidated in the

(OA No.483/2022)

Page 4 of 7

[KAUR]

application.

The applicant Bank has produced on record the original loan transaction and security documents at Sr.Nos.AW-1/1 to AW1/23 which corroborate the case of the applicant Bank.

¶46

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

¶47

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.

¶48

On perusal of the Claim Affidavit, it appears that the applicant Bank has claimed relief in respect of hypothecated and mortgaged property. However, the applicant Bank has not claimed the said relief in the main Original Application. Therefore, the applicant Bank is not entitled for any orders and relief in that regard.

¶49

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @12.40% per annum with monthly rests for Agri. Term Loan and @11.95% per annum with monthly rests for Term Loan. However, considering the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum for both the facilities, it would be just and reasonable.

(OA No.483/2022)

Page 5 of 7

[KAUR]

Hence, I pass the following order:-

¶54

ORDER

¶55

(A) Original Application No.483/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶56

(B) Defendant Nos.1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank towards Agri. Term Loan Account the sum of Rs.5,14,817/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventeen only) with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 28^th July, 2021 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶57

(C) Defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank towards the Term Loan Account the sum of Rs.51,92,117/- (Rupees Fifty-One Lakhs Ninety-Two Thousand One Hundred and Seventeen only) with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 28^th July, 2021 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

(OA No.483/2022)

Page 6 of 7

[KAUR]

(D) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶62

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

¶63

Sd/(Dilip G. Murumkar) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date: 16.04.2024 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune

¶64

(OA No.483/2022)

¶65

Page 7 of 7

¶66

[KAUR]

Bank of Maharashtra v. Bharat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Bharat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Icici Bank Limited versus Aniket

Bank of Maharashtra versus Yashraj Bakers Prop. Mr. Mahendra Kishor Bhosale

Mr Amjad Abdul Rahim Shaikh versus the Muslim Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Bank of India versus Niranjan Shinde

Bank of India versus Raoso Patil

State Bank of India versus M/S. Anna Mahadik Services Station Prop. Mr. Dhanaji Shahaji Choipade