Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Khale Commercial Goat Farm

DRT24 Apr 2024OA/517/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Original Application under the RDB Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal adjudicated a claim by Bank of Baroda for outstanding loans. Finding the claim well-documented, within limitation, and unrebutted by the absent defendants, the Tribunal allowed the application and directed payment with future interest.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to jointly and severally pay Rs. 29,03,532.92 with future interest @ 8% p.a.; Recovery Certificate issued.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Khale Commercial Goat Farm — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 16/10/2022 Registered on: 25/11/2022 Decided on: 24/04/2024 Duration: Y. M. D. 1 – 6 - 09

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, at Aurangabad Original Application No. 517 of 2022

¶3

Total claim amount – Rs. 29,03,532.92 ps

¶4

Bank of Baroda,

¶5

a body corporate incorporated and established under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (Act No. V of 1970) having its Head Office at Mandavi, Baroda (Gujarat State) and one of its Branches at Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Plot No. 8, Sector-E, CIDCO, N-5, Connaught Place, CIDCO, Aurangabad, Maharashtra – 431003 through its Power of Attorney Holder and Chief Manager Shri Vishal Raj Gupta, age 36 years occupation Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch.

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

1 M/s. Khale Commercial Goat Farm through its sole Proprietor Mr Pralhad Punjaji Khale

¶9

…Defendant

¶10

2 Mr Pralhad Punjaji Khale, PAN No. AKRPK7214P Aadhar No.

¶11

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 517/2022)

¶12

Page 1 of 7

¶13

201892917107 Mob. No. 9922431965

¶14

3 Mr Suhas Vasantrao Deoraikar PAN No. AFHPD4096F Mob. No. 9922431965

¶15

Defendants No. 1 to 3 carrying on business/residing at: Gat No. 276, Hissa No.1, Agadgaon, Devgaon Tal. & Dist. Ahmednagar 414002

¶16

and defendant No.2 also residing at Plot No. 24, near Gugale Colony, Burhanpur, Ahmednagar 414002

¶17

Appearance : For the applicant-bank Mr. S.R. Vakil, Adv. For Defendants Mr Anand P. Raka, Adv. Shri Vimal Gupta, Presiding Officer Pronounced on : 24^th April 2024 O R D E R 1. The Original Application is filed under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 29,03,532.92 ps

¶18

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 517/2022)

¶19

Page 2 of 7

¶20

(Rs. twenty nine lakhs three thousand five hundred thirty two and ps. ninety two only) towards outstanding of loan amount availed by them, alongwith future contractual rate of interest Applicant pleads that defendants No.1 & 2 as borrowers and Deft,. No.3 as guarantor obtained term loan of Rs. 23.34 lakhs for construction of shed and purchasing machinery ; and cash credit loan of Rs. 4.00 lakhs for working capital on 24/03/2017, on execution of relevant documents including Regd. Mortgage deed, vide No. 1520/2008 on 31/03/2017, in the sum of Rs. 27.34 lakhs in favour of applicant to secure the loan amount. Thereafter defendants obtained Covid loan/term loan of Rs. 50,000/- on 30/04/2020 from the applicant bank. It is pleaded that however, the defendants failed to follow the repayment programme as agreed and thereby the loan accounts classified as NPA on 01/05/2021 and consequently applicant applicant issued legal demand notice on 21/09/2022 but the defendants failed to repay the loan amount due against them. It

¶21

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 517/2022)

¶22

Page 3 of 7

¶23

is further pleaded that in the meantime, defendants have

¶24

executed letter of acknowledgment of due on03/09/2019 and 14/03/2022 and got extended period to repay the loan amount. Hence this Orig. Application.

¶25

Defendants though appeared in the matter, failed to file their written statement and therefore, their right to file written statement stands closed, vide order dated 17/07/2023, and the Orig. Application proceeded without W.S. against defendants

¶26

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶27

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 ?

¶28

I have gone through the record of the matter. The applicant bank has filed Claim Affidavit of Mr Vishal Raj Gupta, Chief Manager (Exh.4). The applicant bank also filed list of original documents (Exh.5) annexing therewith 18 documents to corroborate and prove its claim, as given in the Original Application, which are marked as Exh.A.W.1 to A.W.

¶29

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 517/2022)

¶30

Page 4 of 7

¶31

18 on behalf of the applicant, which clinches the claim of the applicant-bank against the defendants. Moreover, in view of the fact that the averments in the Original Application have gone unrebutted because of absence of the defendants in the matter, 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 Orig. Application is filed well within the period of limitation of three years. Hence I hold that the defendants are liable to pay to applicant-bank the claimed amount in Orig. Application with future reasonable interest considering meantime Covid-Pandeic-19 long period and costs. Hence the following order.

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

(A) The Original Application is allowed with costs.

¶34

(B) Defendants No.1 to 3 are directed to pay jointly or severally to the applicant-bank the aggregate sum of Rs. 29,03,532.92 ps (Rs. twenty nine lakhs three thousand five hundred thirty two and ps. ninety two only) together with future interest @ 8% p.a., simple, from the date of filing the Orig. Application till

¶35

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 517/2022)

¶36

Page 5 of 7

¶37

repayment/ realization.

¶38

(C) Amount recovered, if any, by applicant-bank during pendency of the Orig. Appln. shall be reduced from such calculated amount before the Recovery Officer and demand notice shall be issued for balance amount.

¶39

(D) The applicant-bank is entitled to proceed against the and as

¶40

mortgaged hypothecated properties, described in the Orig. Application towards realization of the dues of the defendants;

¶41

(I) All that piece and parcel of the land Gat No/survey No. 276/1 to the extent of nonagricultural plot area 3000 square mtrs situated at village Devgaon Tal. & Dist. Ahmednagar belonging to Deft. No.2, bounded by : to East : Agadgaon road; to West: Gat No. 274, to South : Gat No. 273 and to North: Gat No. 275

¶42

(II) Security by way of hypothecation of following assets:

¶43

Crops, tools, equipments receivables and other movables belonging to Deft. No.1

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 517/2022)

¶47

Page 6 of 7

¶48

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

¶49

(H) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶50

(I) Applicant-bank to file affidavit before the Recovery Officer about sale of property and appropriation of money in the loan account under the securitization, if any, before issuance of Demand Notice.

¶51

(J) Copy of order be sent to the Recovery Officer.

¶52

(K) Communicate order to the parties concerned.

¶53

Order be uploaded on the official website.

¶54

( Vimal Gupta ) PRESIDING OFFICER, Aurangabad, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, Date: 24^th April 2024 Aurangabad

¶55

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 517/2022)

¶56

Page 7 of 7

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Khale Commercial Goat Farm

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Khale Commercial Goat Farm

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

State Bank of India versus Padmavati Traders

Rbl Bank Limited versus Kapil Trading Company

Bank of Maharashtra versus Vijaya Dinesh Soni

Ganesh Trimbak Shinde versus Aspire Home Finance Corporation Limited

Bank of Maharashtra versus Balasaheb Yogiraj Sanap

Bank of Maharashtra versus Subhash Gopinath Bankar