Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Kundlik Laxman Saykar

DRT25 Apr 2024OA/54/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of loan dues totaling Rs. 26,91,677/- along with interest from multiple borrowers and guarantors who failed to repay an agricultural term loan.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 26,91,677/- plus 6% p.a. simple interest; bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged properties and defendants for realization.

Union Bank of India versus Kundlik Laxman Saykar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 03/11/2022 Registered on: 13/04/2023 Decided on: 25/04/2024 Duration: Y. M. D. 1 – 4 - 52

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, at Aurangabad

¶3

Original Application No. 54 of 2023

¶4

Claim : Recovery of Rs. 26,91,677/-

¶5

Union Bank of India,

¶6

a body corporate and constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act v, 1970, having its Head Office at 239, Backbay Reclamation, Bombay 400 021 and one of its Branch at Rashin Branch Taluka Karjat Dist. Ahmednagar and acting through its power of attorney holder and one of Branch Manager Shri Bapu Abasaheb Supekar, age 42 years occup. Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Rashin Branch Taluka Karjat Dist. Ahmednagar and having authority to file the application which includes the authority to sign and verify the application. 414403 [email protected]

¶7

… Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 Mr Kundlik Laxman Saykar, age 53 years occup. agri. at Rajebhosale Vasti, Rashin

¶10

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 54/2023)

¶11

Page 1 of 8

¶12

Tal. Karjat Dist. Ahmednagar 414403 Aadhaar Card No. 90160499 9295 Mob. No. 9975140126 And Gat No. 1026/1, village Rashin Tal. Karjat Dist. Ahmednagar

¶13

2 Mrs Suvarna Kundlik Saykar, age 46 years occup. agri. at Raut Vasti, Rashin Dist. Ahmednagar 414403 Aadhaar card No. 6370 7934 4695 And Mrs Suvarna Kundlik Saykar, age 46 years occup. Agri. at Rajebhosale Vasti, Rashin Tal. Karjat Dist. Ahmednagar 414403 Aadhaar Card No. 6370 7934 4695 Mob. No. 9975140126 And Gat No. 1026/3, village Rashin Tal. Karjat Dist. Ahmednagar

¶14

3 Mr Mohan Kundlik Sayakar, age 29 years occup. agri. at Rajebhosale Vasti, Rashin Tal. Karjat Dist. Ahmednagar 414403 Aadhaar Card No. 9497 8637 9566 PAN No. GASPS5578B Mob. No. 9975140126 And Gat No. 1026/2, village Rashin Tal. Karjat Dist. Ahmednagar

¶15

4 Mr Ajinath Haribhau Dhonde, age 57 years occup. Agri. at 221, Sonalwadi Tal. Karjat

¶16

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 54/2023)

¶17

Page 2 of 8

¶18

Dist. Ahmednagar – 414403 Election Card ID: MT/39/227/114437

¶19

5 Mr Haridas Shankar Raut, age 37 years occup. agri. at Jadhavalahor Basti, Rajebhosale Basti Ga, Rashin, Election Card ID: TKM6822274

¶20

…Defendants

¶21

Appearance : For Applicant-bank : Mr. V.B. Kulkarni, Adv. For Defendants: Absent

¶22

Shri Vimal Gupta Presiding Officer

¶23

Pronounced on: 25^th April 2024

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The applicant-bank has filed the present Original

¶26

Application against the defendant for recovery of sum of Rs. 26,91,677/- (Rs. twenty six lakhs ninety one thousand six hundred seventy seven only) towards outstanding of loan amount availed by them, together with further contractual interest from 18/10/2022 till repayment/ realization, and, in default, for sale of mortgaged/hypothecated properties, as described in the Original

¶27

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 54/2023) Page 3 of 8

¶28

Application.

¶29

Facts of the case, in short, are that the defendants No.1 to

¶30

3 as borrowers and Defts. No. 4 & 5 as guarantors have obtained Term Loan of Rs. 10.00 lakhs for agricultural land development and construction of farm pond, on 20/06/2015, on execution of relevant documents to secure the loan amount, including Regd. Mortgage Deed No. KJA 1695/2015 dated 09/06/2015 in favour of applicant bank, as shown in para No. 5.3 of the Orig. Application and on acceptance of terms and conditions as to repayment alongwith interest @ 12.50% p.a. with half yearly rests, by 7 equal yearly installments plus interest and first installment was to be paid on or before March 2016. It is pleaded that however, the defendants could not follow the repayment programme and failed to repay it as agreed and thereby the loan account classified as NPA on 31/03/2020. It is further pleaded that the defendants though were requested to repay the loan amount time and again, they failed to do so. Hence applicant

¶31

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 54/2023)

¶32

Page 4 of 8

¶33

issued legal demand notice on 18/11/2021 to which they did not pay response and failed to repay the amount outstanding against them. It is pleaded that in the meantime, the defendants executed Balance Confirmation and Acknowledgment on 10/05/2018 and 10/04/2021. Hence this Original Application with prayer for the reliefs sought, as mentioned in para No.1 above.

¶34

Though the defendants duly served with summons of the Orig. Application, by hand, vide Court Commissioner report Exh. 9, they preferred to remain absent in the matter and therefore, the matter proceeded ex parte against them, vide order dated 16/02/2024.

¶35

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶36

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 ?

¶37

Perused the record. The applicant bank filed evidence on

(O.A. No. 54/2023)

( Madkar)

Page 5 of 8

affidavit of Mr Bapu Abasaheb Supekar, Branch Manager (Exh.5) along with list of documents (Exh.6) annexing therewith 13 documents, which are marked as Exh.A.W.1 to A.W. 13 on behalf of the applicant, which clinches the claim of the applicantbank against all the defendants. Moreover, in view of the fact that the averments in the Original Application have gone unrebutted, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled for the prayers made therein. Perusal of the documents including entries of deposit of amounts by defendants in statement of account filed shows that the Orig. Application is filed well within the prescribed period of limitation. Hence I hold that both the defendants are liable to pay to applicant bank the claim amount claimed in the Orig. Application with future reasonable interest considering meantime long period Covid-Pandeic-19 and costs. In the result, the present Orig. Application is allowed with costs, as under:

¶43

(A) Defendants No. 1 to 5 are ordered to pay either jointly

¶44

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 54/2023)

¶45

Page 6 of 8

¶46

or severally sum of Rs. 26,91,677/- (Rs. twenty six lakhs ninety one thousand six hundred seventy seven only) alongwith interest @ 6% p.a., Simple, from the date of order till repayment/ realization.

¶47

(B) 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.

¶48

(C) The applicant-bank is entitled to proceed against the following mortgaged/hypothecated property-, towards realization of their dues:

¶49

All that piece and parcel of property bearing land :

¶50

(I) Gat No. 1026/1 area 1H.25R situated at Rashin Tal. Karjat Dist. Ahmednagar, owned by Deft. No.1

¶51

(II) Gat No. 1026/2 area 1H.25R plus situated at Rashin Tal. Karjat Dist. Ahmednagar, owned by Deft. No.3 (III) Gat No. 1026/3 area 1H.25R situated at Rashin Tal. Karjat Dist. Ahmednagar, owned by Deft. No.2.

¶52

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

¶53

(E) The applicant bank is entitled to the costs of the Orig. Application.

¶54

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 54/2023)

¶55

Page 7 of 8

¶56

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

¶57

(G) The 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.

¶58

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

¶59

(I) Communicate copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶60

Order be uploaded on the official website.

¶61

( Vimal Gupta ) PRESIDING OFFICER, Aurangabad, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, Date: 25/04/2024 Aurangabad

¶62

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 54/2023)

¶63

Page 8 of 8

Union Bank of India v. Kundlik Laxman Saykar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Kundlik Laxman Saykar

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 Maharashtra versus Balasaheb Yogiraj Sanap

Bank of Maharashtra versus Subhash Gopinath Bankar

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Khale Commercial Goat Farm

Eknath Budha Patil versus Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank)

State Bank of India versus Irfan Chand Mahebub Pathan

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Limbaji Vishwanath Ghuge