Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Uttam

DRT24 May 2024OA/622/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed a recovery application by Bank of Maharashtra against four of the five respondents for principal and future interest. The tribunal dismissed the application against the fifth respondent due to lack of pleadings and reduced the claim by deducting excess penal interest, setting future interest at 9% simple.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of principal amounts towards MKCC, Term Loan, and Vehicle Loan with future interest @9% p.a.; recovery secured by mortgage properties; application dismissed against 5th respondent.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Uttam — Company and Corporate | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on : 08.04.2022 Registered on : 23.06.2022 Decided on : 24.05.2024 Duration : Y M D 02 01 16

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 622/2022.

¶3

Bank of Maharashtra, Banking Company Incorporated under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its registered office at “Lokmangal”, 1501, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411005 and one of its branch office at – Watambare Branch, Solapur.

¶4

.. Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1 Uttam Dadu Lade, Age – Adult, Occ. : Agriculturist,

¶7

2 Surekh Uttam Lade, Age – Adult, Occ. : Housewife,

¶8

3 Laxman Babu Yelpale, Age – Adult, Occ. : Farmer,

¶9

4 Chaggan Babu Yelpale, Age – Adult, Occ. : Agriculturist,

¶10

5 Mahadev Bhanudas Lade, Age – Adult, Occ. : Agriculturist,

(OA No. 622/2022)

Page 1 of 8

Sanap

.. Defendants

All R/at – Post Ajnale, Taluka Sangola, District Solapur 413308.

¶16

APPEARANCES

¶17

For Applicant	Advocate V.S. Tokekar.
For Defendants	Exparte.

¶18

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.37,01,226=88

¶19

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 24^th May, 2024)

¶20

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.37,01,226=88 towards MKCC Loan and Term Loan together with future interest @10.15% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶21

Brief facts of the application are as under : As per the loan application of defendant No.1, the applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed the MKCC facility of Rs.1,00,000/- to defendant No.1 on 17.07.2009. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 stood guarantors for the repayment of said loan facility sanctioned and disbursed to defendant No.1. The said MKCC facility was enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/- to defendant Nos.1 and 2 and defendant Nos.3 and 4 stood guarantors for the same.

(OA No. 622/2022)

Page 2 of 8

Sanap

Thereafter, again on the request of defendant Nos.1 and 2, the applicant Bank sanctioned Term Loan of Rs.8,00,000/- to them vide sanction Letter dated 29.01.2015. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 agreed to stand as guarantors for the said Term Loan.

¶26

Further, on the request of defendant Nos.1 and 2, the applicant Bank sanctioned Vehicle Loan of Rs.3,50,000/- to them vide sanction Letter dated 18.03.2015. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 agreed stood guarantors for the said Vehicle Loan.

¶27

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank along with deed of hypothecation and mortgage of the land Gat No. 841/1 Area 49R located at Yelgare-Mangewadi and Land Gat Nos. 1037/2 area 1H 80R, 1037/2 area 20R and 586/4 area 1H 19R located at Ajnale, in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶28

The defendants also executed Balance and Security Confirmation Letters on 18.02.2018, 19.02.2018, 15.03.2018, 15.02.2021 and 12.03.2021 and thereby acknowledged the balance standing at the foot of the accounts and the documents executed in respect of various loan accounts.

¶29

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed

(OA No. 622/2022)

Page 3 of 8

Sanap

defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Hence, 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 01.02.022, 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 defendant failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 02.04.2024 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶36

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Tushar Tikhute, Chief Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1-1 to AW-1-38 along with list (Exhibit 7), 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 applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for

(OA No. 622/2022)

Page 4 of 8

Sanap

reliefs as claimed. However, from the relief clause it appears that the applicant Bank has claimed recovery of MKCC facility from defendant Nos.1, 3 to 5, Term Loan from defendant Nos.1 to 4 and Vehicle Term Loan from defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5; but surprisingly, in the pleadings of Original Application as well as in the Claim Affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant Bank, there is no whisper or averment about role and responsibility of defendant No.5. Without any pleadings the applicant Bank claimed recovery from defendant No.5 in the relief clause only. Thus, no relief against defendant No.5 can be passed. Therefore, the Application is liable to be dismissed against defendant No.5.

¶43

The applicant Bank has claimed Penal Interest of Rs.28,160/for MKCC facility, Rs.45,751/- for Term Loan and Rs.22,057/for Vehicle Term Loan, which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the claim amount of Rs.12,91,856/- for MKCC facility is reduced to Rs.12,63,696/-. The claim amount of Rs.17,75,436/- for Term Loan is reduced to Rs.17,29,685/- and the claim amount of Rs.6,33,935/- for Vehicle Term Loan is reduced to Rs.6,11,878/-.

(OA No. 622/2022)

Page 5 of 8

Sanap

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @10.15% 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.

¶48

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(A) Original Application No. 622/2022 is allowed with proportionate costs against defendant Nos.1 to 4.

¶51

(B) Defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.12,63,696/- (Rs. Twelve Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Six only) towards MKCC loan facility along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 08.04.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶52

(C) Defendant Nos.1 to 4 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.17,29,685/(Rs. Seventeen Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Five only) towards Term Loan along

(OA No. 622/2022)

Page 6 of 8

Sanap

with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 08.04.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶57

(D) Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.6,11,878/- (Rs. Six Lakhs Eleven Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Eight only) towards Term Loan (Vehicle) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 08.04.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶58

(E) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage of land Gat No. 841/1 Area 49R located at Yelgare-Mangewadi and Land Gat Nos. 1037/2 area 1H 80R, 1037/2 area 20R and 586/4 area 1H 19R located at Ajnale, more particularly described in the Schedule of the Original Application.

¶59

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

(OA No. 622/2022)

Page 7 of 8

Sanap

(G) Original Application No. 622/2022 is dismissed against defendant No. 5.

¶64

(H) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶65

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

¶66

Place : Pune Date : 24.05.2024

¶67

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

¶68

(OA No. 622/2022)

¶69

Page 8 of 8

¶70

Sanap

Bank of Maharashtra v. Uttam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Uttam

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

Canara Bank versus M/S.Vaibhav Krushi Udyog Prop. Mr, Santosh Vitthal Bhate

Bank of Maharashtra versus Shrinath Roadlines Prop Shri. Rahul Balaso Bhondwe

Bank of Maharashtra versus Arun

Bank of India versus Mr. Asif Khawaja Sayyad, Prop. of M/S. Heena Tours and Travels

Uco Bank versus Abhijit Kumar Mhetre

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Shashikant Chandrakant Patil