Allowed

Federal Bank v. Amarshing Phadnaik

DRT5 Aug 2024OA/513/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal allowed the applicant bank's recovery application against two defaulted borrowers. Reducing the claimed principal by disallowed additional charges, the court awarded recovery of Rs.48,86,011 with future interest at 9% per annum, secured by mortgaged agricultural land.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs.48,86,011 with future interest at 9% per annum and entitlement to sell mortgaged property.

Federal Bank versus Amarshing Phadnaik — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on : 13.04.2022 Registered on : 07.05.2022 Decided on : 05.08.2024 Duration : Y M D 02 03 22

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 513/2022.

¶3

The Federal Bank Limited, A Banking Company within the meaning of Indian Companies Act, 2013 (18/2013) having its registered office at Federal Towers, Bank Junction, Alwaye, Ernakulum District, Kerala and branch at - Ganesh Apartment, Ground Floor, Shaniwar Peth, Karad 415 110, District Satara.

¶4

.. Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1 Mr. Amarsingh Bhujangrao Phadnaik, Age 56 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o : Palus, Near Mahadev Mandir, Taluka Palus, District Sangli 416 310.

¶7

2 Mrs. Vidyulata Amarsingh Phadnaik, Age 46 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o : Palus, Near Mahadev Mandir, Taluka Palus, District Sangli 416 310.

.. Defendants

(OA No. 513/2022)

Page 1 of 5

Sanap

APPEARANCES

For Applicant Advocate Nikhil Barsode For Defendants Ex parte.

¶14

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.49,78,159/-

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

(Delivered on 05^th August, 2024)

¶17

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.49,78,159/- together with future interest for Kisan Suvidha @12.45% and for FKCC @11.45% 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

Defendant No.1 is borrower and defendant No.2 is co-obligant. As per the loan application dated 02.08.2018 of the defendants, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Federal Kisan Suvidha of Rs.26,00,000/- and FKCC of Rs.7,00,000/- to the defendant vide Sanction Letter dated 28.09.2018.

¶20

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants executed necessary loan and security documents along with deed of mortgage of Agricultural Land Gat No. 299 area 1H 63R at village Palus, District Sangli, in favour of the applicant Bank. The defendants have also executed

(OA No. 513/2022)

Page 2 of 5

Sanap

Confirmation of Balance Letter dated 09.04.2021 confirming balance due under the respective loan accounts.

¶25

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Therefore, on 13.09.2021 and 25.11.2021, 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.

¶26

Hence, this application is filed.

¶27

The defendant failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 29.04.2024 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶28

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Dipak Latthe, Authorized Signatory and POA holder of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1-1 to AW1-17 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶29

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

¶30

Since the defendants failed to appear and contest the

(OA No. 513/2022)

Page 3 of 5

Sanap

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 other charges of Rs.16,937/(Rs.12,449/- for FKCC + Rs.4,488/- for Kisan Suvidha) and Penal Interest of Rs.75,211/- (Rs.24,895=47 for FKCC + 50,315=46 for Kisan Suvidha), which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.49,78,159/- is reduced to Rs.48,86,011/-.

¶36

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest for Kisan Suvidha @12.45% and for FKCC @11.45% 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. 513/2022 is allowed with proportionate costs.

¶40

(B) Defendant Nos.1 and 2 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.48,86,011/-

(OA No. 513/2022)

Page 4 of 5

Sanap

(Rs. Forty Eight Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Elevan only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 13.04.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶45

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage of Agricultural Land Gat No. 299 area 1H 63R at village Palus, District Sangli, more particularly described in the Schedule-I of the Original Application.

¶46

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

¶47

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶48

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

¶49

Place : Pune Date : 05.08.2024

¶50

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

¶51

(OA No. 513/2022)

¶52

Page 5 of 5

¶53

Sanap

Federal Bank v. Amarshing Phadnaik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Federal Bank v. Amarshing Phadnaik

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

Uco Bank versus Ranjit Narute

Bank of Baroda versus Vijay Zankjar

Union Bank of India versus W. R. Metal Engg and Research Center and W. R. Infotech Prop Shri. Rohan Balasaheb Waghmare

State Bank of India versus Sanjay Shinde

Bank of Baroda versus M/S/ Shubhlakshmi Logistics, Prop. Karan Singh

Bank of Baroda versus Rajesh Panghal