Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Tukaram Shinde

DRT2 Apr 2024OA/569/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an ex parte Decree for recovery in a debt recovery proceeding. The Tribunal allowed the applicant bank to recover outstanding dues of a term loan along with 9% annual future interest and the right to sell mortgaged agricultural land.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.27,32,583/- plus future interest @9% p.a. from 23.09.2021; direction to sell mortgaged property with Monetary Relief.

Union Bank of India versus Tukaram Shinde — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 23.09.2021 Registered on: 27.06.2022 Decided on: 02.04.2024 Duration: Y M D 2 6 10

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.569/2022

¶3

Union Bank of India,

¶4

(Erstwhile Corporation Bank)

¶5

[The Corporation Bank merged with Union Bank of India vide Government’s Gazette Notification No.133 dated 04.03.2020].

¶6

A Banking Company constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Central Office at Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Mumbai400 021 and branch amongst other places at – Ratna Kalyan, 286/5/6, Budhwar Peth, Station Road, Karad, Taluka-Karad, District-Satara-415 110, known as Karad Branch, Satara.

¶7

… Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Shri Tukaram Tanaji Shinde, Adult, Occ: Agriculture, Residing at-Village Chikhali, TalukaKadegaon, District-Sangli-415 304.

… Defendant

(OA No.569/2022)

Page 1 of 6

[ npb ]

APPEARANCES

For the Applicant	Mr. Ramesh B. Ganbote - Advocate
For Defendant	Exparte

¶16

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.27,32,583/-

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

(Delivered on 02^nd April, 2024)

¶19

The Applicant Bank has filed the present Application for

¶20

recovery of sum of Rs.27,32,583/- in respect of Term Loan account together with future interest @12.95% p.a. with monthly rests thereon from 23^rd September, 2021 till full repayment/realization of entire dues from defendant.

¶21

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶22

The defendant borrower approached the erstwhile applicant Bank i.e. Corporation Bank on 19^th January, 2018 for Term Loan of Rs.20,00,000/- for construction of Poly House.

¶23

The erstwhile applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed the Term Loan facility of Rs.20,00,000/- to defendant on 19^th January, 2018 against which defendant executed necessary loan transaction and security documents as set out in paragraph No.5.5 of the Original Application including Mortgage Deed in respect of agricultural land bearing Gat

(OA No.569/2022)

Page 2 of 6

[ npb ]

No.497(P) and Gat No.133(P) more particularly mentioned in paragraph No.5.7 of the Original Application.

¶28

In the meantime, the erstwhile Corporation Bank merged with the Union Bank of India vide Government’s Gazette Notification No.133 dated 04^th March, 2020.

¶29

The applicant Bank contended that after availing the Agriculture Term Loan facility, defendant failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the sanction and has also failed to pay the installments with interest in the Term Loan account. Therefore, the Term Loan account of defendant has become Non-Performing Asset as per Reserve Bank of India norms.

¶30

Thereafter, the applicant Bank through its Advocate issued Notice dated 24^th September, 2020 calling upon the defendant to pay the installment and interest in the Term Loan account and to regularize the account. Despite Notice, defendant failed to regularize the loan account.

¶31

Hence, this application is filed.

¶32

Defendant failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex parte against them vide Order dated 25^th January, 2024 passed below the

(OA No.569/2022)

Page 3 of 6

[ npb ]

Application (Exhibit-1).

¶37

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Shri Pawan Kumar, Manager and Principal Officer, which supports the case of the applicant Bank elucidated in the application.

¶38

The applicant Bank has produced on record the original loan transaction documents (Sr.Nos.AW-1/1 to AW-1/9) which corroborate the case of the applicant Bank.

¶39

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

¶40

Since the defendant 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.

¶41

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @12.95% p.a. with monthly rests. However, considering facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% (simple) for both the accounts, it would be just and reasonable.

(OA No.569/2022)

Page 4 of 6

[ npb ]

10. Hence, I pass the following order:-

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(A) Original Application No.569/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶48

(B) Defendant shall pay to the applicant Bank towards Term Loan account the sum of Rs.27,32,583/(Rupees Twenty-Seven Lakhs Thirty-Two Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty-Three only) with future interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 23^rd September, 2021 till full realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶49

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage of immovable property i.e. all that piece and parcel of agricultural land bearing Gat No.497 (P) admeasuring 00 Hector 65.5 Aar and Gat No.133 (P) admeasuring 00 Hector 13.92 Aar at Village Chikhali, Taluka-Kadegaon, District-Sangli, within the limits of Registration District Sangli, Sub Registration District Kadegaon,

(OA No.569/2022)

Page 5 of 6

[ npb ]

District Sangli, more particularly mentioned in paragraph Nos.5.7 of the Original Application.

¶54

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

¶55

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶56

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

¶57

Sd/- (Dilip G Murumkar) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 02.04.2024 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune

¶58

(OA No.569/2022)

¶59

Page 6 of 6

¶60

[ npb ]

Union Bank of India v. Tukaram Shinde

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Tukaram Shinde

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

Union Bank of India versus Shashikant Barge

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sunanda Meshram

Yes Bank versus Kiran Maruti Ghule

Bank of Maharashtra versus Shashidhar Chavan

Federal Bank versus Sangita Hakke

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Quality Cement Veet Products and Suppliers Prop. Mr. Netaji Ramchandra Yadav