Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Satish

DRT19 Oct 2024OA/552/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bank of Maharashtra filed an Original Application for recovery of dues totaling over Rs.1.21 crore against mortgaged agricultural lands. The Applicants contended that the Defendants defaulted in payments. As Defendants appeared ex-parte, the Tribunal allowed the application, directing payment of the principal sum along with future interest at 9% per annum secured by agricultural mortgage propertie

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay principal amounts totaling approx. Rs.1.21 crore along with future interest at 9% p.a., secured by mortgaged agricultural lands. Recovery Certificate issued.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Satish — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on : 18.08.2022 Registered on : 12.04.2023 Decided on : 19.10.2024 Duration : Y M D 02 02 01

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 552/2023.

¶3

Bank of Maharashtra, A Banking Company Incorporated under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its registered office at “Lokmangal”, 1501, Shivajinagar, Pune 5 and branch office at Lasurne, Taluka Indapur, District Pune.

¶4

.. Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1 Mr. Satish Nana Shinde, Age 53 years, Occ. – Agriculturist, R/at : Bori, Taluka Indapur, District Pune - 413104.

¶7

2 Mr. Dilip Madhav Adaling, Age years, Occ. – Agriculturist, R/at : Lasurne, Taluka Indapur, District Pune - 413114.

¶8

3 Mohan Gulab Dudhal, Age 35 years, Occ. – Agriculturist,

(OA No. 552/2023)

Page 1 of 7

Sanap

R/at : Shelgaon, Taluka Indapur, District Pune - 413104.

¶13

4 Mr. Pramod Satish Shinde, Age 30 years, Occ. – Agriculturist, R/at : Bori, Taluka Indapur, District Pune - 413104. 5 Mr. Shivaji Maruti Shinde, Age 53 years, Occ. – Agriculturist, R/at : Anthurne, Taluka Indapur, District Pune - 413104.

¶14

.. Defendants

¶15

APPEARANCES

¶16

For Applicant Advocate A.A. Malpe. For Defendants Ex parte.

¶17

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.1,21,06,944/-

¶18

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 19^th October, 2024)

¶19

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.1,21,06,944/- together with future interest @12.15% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶20

Brief facts of the application are as under :

¶21

Defendant No.1 is an agriculturist and principal borrower. As per the loan applications of defendant No.1, the applicant Bank sanctioned the following loan facilities to defendant No.1.

(OA No. 552/2023)

Page 2 of 7

Sanap

Name of the facility	Amount	Date of sanction
Agricultural Term Loan	15,00,000	04.07.2012
Agricultural Term Loan	30,00,000	19.03.2014
Cash Credit Loan	30,00,000	27.05.2014

¶26

Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 stood guarantors for Agricultural Term Loan of Rs.15,00,000/- availed by defendant No.1 and defendant Nos. 4 and 5 stood guarantors for Agricultural Term Loan of Rs.30,00,000/- and Cash Credit Loan of Rs.30,00,000/availed by defendant No.1

¶27

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 of Agricultural lands Gat Nos. 306, 302, 300, 429 and 318 situated at village Bori, Taluka Indapur, District Pune, in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶28

Further, the defendants have also executed Balance and Security Confirmation from time to time in respect of loan facilities, in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶29

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the

(OA No. 552/2023)

Page 3 of 7

Sanap

accounts. Hence, on 31.03.2021, 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 05.02.2022 and 22.02.2022, 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.

¶34

Hence, this application is filed.

¶35

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 18.06.2024 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶36

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Pramod Kumar, Chief Manager and Holding Authority of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1-1 to AW-1-31 along with list (Exhibit 9), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶37

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

¶38

Since the defendants failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of the

(OA No. 552/2023)

Page 4 of 7

Sanap

applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for reliefs as claimed.

¶43

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.

¶44

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @12.15% 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.

¶45

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(A) Original Application No. 552/2023 is allowed with costs.

¶48

(B) Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.22,28,452/(Rs. Twenty Two Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Two only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 18.08.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this

(OA No. 552/2023)

Page 5 of 7

Sanap

operative order.

(C) Defendant Nos. 1, 4 and 5 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.53,49,955/- (Rs. Fifty Three Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Five only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 18.08.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶54

(D) Defendant Nos. 1, 4 and 5 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.45,28,537/- (Rs. Forty Five Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Seven only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 18.08.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶55

(E) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage of Agricultural lands Gat Nos. 306, 302, 300, 429 and 318 situated at village Bori, Taluka Indapur, District Pune, more particularly

(OA No. 552/2023)

Page 6 of 7

Sanap

described in the Para Nos. 5.7, 5.13 and 5.18 of the Original Application.

¶60

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

¶61

(G) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶62

(H) 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 : 19.10.2024 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶64

(OA No. 552/2023)

¶65

Page 7 of 7

¶66

Sanap

Bank of Maharashtra v. Satish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Satish

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

Uco Bank versus Suresh Bhise

Hdfc Bank versus Aaditya Dagdu Patakrao

Bank of Baroda versus Ms Thorat Briquetters and Company Prop. Mrs. Umali Sachin Thorat

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus Shivyogi Swami

Canara Bank versus Kalpavruksha Agro Industries

Indian Bank versus Hasina Inamdar