Allowed

Canara Bank v. Dshrath Kakade

DRT4 Nov 2024OA/494/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery. After adjudicating the principal and deducting penal interest, the bank was ordered to receive Rs.1.01 crore plus future interest at 9% per annum, secured by a mortgage on agricultural land.

What did the court decide?

The respondents to jointly pay Rs.1,01,10,777 with future interest at 9% per annum from 21.09.2022. Recovery Certificate issued and mortgaged property to be sold.

Canara Bank versus Dshrath Kakade — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on : 21.09.2022 Registered on : 12.04.2023 Decided on : 04.11.2024 Duration : Y M D 02 01 13

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 494/2023.

¶3

Canara Bank, A Banking Company incorporated under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its head office at 112 J C Road, Bangalore and branch office at Hotgi Road, .. Applicant District Solapur.

¶4

Versus

¶5

1 Dashrath Balu Kakade, R/o – At post Virawade, Taluka Mohol, District Solapur.

¶6

2 Balu Ramchandra Kakade, R/o – At post Virawade, Taluka Mohol, District Solapur.

¶7

3 Dnyaneshwar Sopan Ingole, R/o – A-1, Tarangan Apartment, Damani Nagar, Solapur.

.. Defendants

(OA No. 494/2023)

Page 1 of 6

Sanap

APPEARANCES

For Applicant Advocate Pooja Mali for M.V. Kini & Co. For Defendants Ex parte.

¶14

Total Claim Amount –Rs.1,06,54,862/-

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

(Delivered on 04^th November, 2024)

¶17

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.1,06,54,862/- together with future interest @13.75% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶18

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶19

As per the loan application dated 29.01.2010 of defendant Nos.1 and 2, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Term loan of Rs.30,00,000/- to defendant Nos.1 and 2 vide Sanction Letter dated 02.05.2011. Defendant No.3 stood guarantor for the repayment of loan availed by defendant Nos.1 and 2.

¶20

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank along with deed of mortgage dated 14.03.2011 in respect of Agricultural land bearing Gat Nos. 369/1 and 369/2 situated at village Virawade, Taluka

(OA No. 494/2023)

Page 2 of 6

Sanap

Mohol, District Solapur, in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶25

Further, as per request of defendant Nos.1 and 2, the applicant Bank restructured the loan to Rs.44,26,516=81 and accordingly the defendants have executed agreement dated 31.12.2015 in favour of the applicant Bank. Thereafter, the defendants have also executed DPN dated 10.01.2019 and 28.02.2020 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, on 31.12.2015, 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 20.09.2022, 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.

¶27

Hence, this application is filed.

¶28

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 30.04.2024 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶29

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence

(OA No. 494/2023)

Page 3 of 6

Sanap

(Exhibit-6) of Raksha Rasik Patel, Manager and Authorized Signatory of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1-1 to AW-1-12 along with list (Exhibit 8), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶34

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

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

The applicant Bank has claimed Penal Interest of Rs.5,44,085/-, which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.1,06,54,862/- is reduced to Rs.1,01,10,777/-.

¶38

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @13.75% per annum. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the

(OA No. 494/2023)

Page 4 of 6

Sanap

opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶43

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(A) Original Application No. 494/2023 is allowed with proportionate costs.

¶46

(B) Defendant Nos.1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.1,01,10,777/(Rupees One Crore One Lakh Ten Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Seven only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 21.09.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶47

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage of Agricultural land bearing Gat Nos. 369/1 and 369/2 situated at village Virawade, Taluka Mohol, District Solapur, more particularly described in the Schedule-B of the Original Application.

¶48

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged

(OA No. 494/2023)

Page 5 of 6

Sanap

property to recover its dues.

¶53

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶54

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

¶55

Place : Pune Date : 04.11.2024

¶56

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

¶57

(OA No. 494/2023)

¶58

Page 6 of 6

¶59

Sanap

Canara Bank v. Dshrath Kakade

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Dshrath Kakade

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

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus M/S Sahyadri Drip and Sprinklers

Union Bank of India versus Sharada Patil

Union Bank of India versus Shaji Puthenpurackal

Bank of India versus Shree Gurukrupa Enterprises Prop. Mrs. Madhavi Dhiraj Pathare

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Pooja Uttam Shinde Alias Mrs. Pooja Ajit Gaikwad

Bank of Maharashtra versus Vijay Sapre