Allowed

Bank of India v. Rajaram Bharade

DRT9 Jul 2024OA/601/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal at Pune allowed an application filed by Bank of India for recovery of Rs.31,72,826 from a borrower and a guarantor. The Tribunal decreed the principal amount along with future interest at 9% per annum, enforcing a second mortgage subject to a prior charge held by another co-operative bank.

What did the court decide?

Respondents jointly or severally to pay Rs.31,72,827 with future interest at 9% per annum from 27.07.2018; mortgaged properties to be sold for realization subject to first charge.

Bank of India versus Rajaram Bharade — Money Laundering | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 27.07.2018 Registered on: 19.04.2023 Decided on: 09.07.2024 Duration: Y M D 05 11 12

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 601/2023.

¶3

Bank of India,

¶4

A Bank Constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 having its Head Office at Star House, C-5, G Block, Bandra- Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 and Branch office at Post Kavathe Mahankal, Taluka Kavathe Mahankal, District Sangli 416405.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Rajaram Mahadeo Bharade, Age Adult, Occ. Agriculture, R/at : Nagnwadi, Tal. Bhudargad, District Kolhapur 416209.

¶8

Shri Mahankali Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Maharahtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960

(OA No. 601/2023)

Page 1 of 7

Sanap

having registered office At Post Kavathe Mahankal, Taluka Kavathe Mahankal, District Sangli 416405. 3. Sangli District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., Incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Maharahtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 having registered office at – SDCC HO, Pushpraj Chowk, Sangli 416416. … Defendants

¶13

APPEARANCES

¶14

For the Applicant Advocate Satyen Jagtap. For the Defendants Ex parte.

¶15

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.31,72,826=77

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

(Delivered on 09^th July, 2024)

¶18

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of sum of Rs.31,72,826=77 by rounding Rs.31,72,827/together with future interest thereon @13.45% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendant Nos.1 and 2 either jointly or severally.

¶19

Brief facts of the application are as under :

¶20

Defendant No. 1 is a Borrower and defendant No.2 is a

¶21

(OA No. 601/2023) Page 2 of 7

¶22

Sanap

¶23

guarantor. Defendant No.3 is joined in this Application as the necessary party as defendant No.2 has created first charge by way of mortgage on the properties mortgaged to the applicant Bank by way of second charge. No relief has been claimed against defendant No.3.

¶24

Defendant No.2 proposed to disburse loans / advances to 282 Truck/Tractor Operators/Bullock Carts operators, therefore, approached the applicant Bank with Resolution dated 25.05.2013 and letter dated 18.07.2013 requesting to grant loan of Rs.2800.00 Lakhs to the harvester and transport contractors on its default guarantee to the said advance. Accordingly, the applicant Bank sanctioned aggregate credit/demand loan facility of Rs.2520.00 Lakhs to 282 borrowers vide Sanction Letter dated 19.08.2013.

¶25

Thereafter, defendant No.2 vide Resolution dated 12.09.2013 with letter dated 17.09.2013 requested for additional loan of Rs.360.00 Lakhs to the harvester and transport contractors on its default guarantee to the said advance. Accordingly, the applicant Bank sanctioned additional loan facility of Rs.360.00 Lakhs i.e. aggregated credit/demand loan facility of Rs.2880.00 Lakhs to 282

(OA No. 601/2023)

Page 3 of 7

Sanap

borrowers vide Sanction Letter dated 30.10.2013.

¶30

Further, at the instance of defendant No.2, as per the loan application of defendant No.1, the applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed the Demand Loan of Rs.18,00,000/- to defendant No.1. In order to secure the aforesaid Demand Loan, defendant Nos.1 and 2 executed necessary loan and security documents. Defendant No.2 has created second charge on the properties Gat Nos. 1456 to 1464, 1466, 1468A, 1469 to 1472, 1474 to 1479, 1483 to 1493, 70 and 72 situated at Kavathe Mahankal, Taluka Kavathe Mahankal, District Sangli by executing registered Mortgage deed dated 24.01.2011. Subsequently, defendant No.2 created further charge on the mortgaged land on 24.08.2011, 25.10.2011, 05.11.2012, 10.09.2013, 21.11.2013.

¶31

Thereafter, as per representation dated 31.03.2015 and 10.07.2015 by defendant No.2, the applicant Bank restructured Demand Loan of Rs.18,00,000/- to Term Loan of Rs.10,95,606/-. Defendant No.1 also executed Letter of Acknowledgement of Debts/Securities dated 31.07.2015.

¶32

The applicant Bank contended that defendant Nos.1 and 2 committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to

(OA No. 601/2023)

Page 4 of 7

Sanap

regularize the accounts. Therefore, on 02.07.2018, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to defendant Nos.1 and 2. Despite service of Notice, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank.

¶37

Hence, this application is filed.

¶38

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 16.04.2024 passed below Application Exhibit-1.

¶39

The applicant has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit 6) of Mr. Shivajee Bhardwaj, Branch Manager of the applicant Bank which supports the case of the applicant Bank elucidated in the application.

¶40

The applicant Bank has also produced list of documents thereby adducing in evidence the original loan transaction and security documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1/1 to AW-1/25 which corroborate the case of the applicant Bank.

¶41

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

¶42

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

(OA No. 601/2023)

Page 5 of 7

Sanap

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

¶47

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @13.45% per annum. However, taking into consideration the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple) it would be just and reasonable.

¶48

Hence, I pass the following order.

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(A) Original Application No. 601/2023 is allowed with costs against defendant Nos.1 and 2.

¶51

(B) Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.31,72,827/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Seventy Two Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Seven only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 27.07.2018 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

(OA No. 601/2023)

Page 6 of 7

Sanap

1469 to 1472, 1474 to 1479, 1483 to 1493, 70 and 72 situated at Kavathe Mahankal, Taluka Kavathe Mahankal, District Sangli, more particularly described in the Para No.5.11 of the Original Application, subject to first charge of defendant No.3.

¶57

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged properties to recover its dues, subject to first charge of defendant No.3.

¶58

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

¶59

(F) No order in respect of defendant No.3 as no relief has been claimed against defendant No.3.

¶60

Place : Pune Date : 09.07.2024

¶61

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

¶62

(OA No. 601/2023)

¶63

Page 7 of 7

¶64

Sanap

Bank of India v. Rajaram Bharade

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Rajaram Bharade

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

Icici Bank Limited versus Ghanshyam

Uco Bank versus Sadhu Bansode

Bank of Maharashtra versus Tanveer Tole

Bank of India versus Bharat Bamdale

Union Bank of India versus Shreekant

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sai Vibhuti Food and Beverages