Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Aparna Dhame

DRT21 Jun 2024OA/648/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of Rs. 25,09,644/- plus future interest. Defendants failed to appear. The court awarded lower interest and granted right to sell mortgaged land.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed; Defendants to pay Rs. 25,09,644/- plus future interest @9% pa; Applicant directed to sell mortgaged property; Recovery Certificate issued.

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

¶1

Presented on : 31.01.2022 Registered on : 22.07.2022 Decided on : 21.06.2024 Duration : Y M D 02 04 21

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 648/2022.

¶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 – 411005 and one of its branch office at Supa, Taluka Baramati, District Pune 412 204.

¶4

.. Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1 Mrs. Aparna Dattatray Dhame, Age 34 years, Occ. : Farmer, R/at – Naroli, Post Supa, Taluka Baramati, District Pune 412 204.

¶7

2 Mrs. Mangal Sudam Pansare, Age 58 years, Occ. : Farmer, R/at – Naroli, Post Supa, Taluka Baramati, District Pune 412 204.

(OA No. 648/2022)

Page 1 of 5

Sanap

3 Mr. Ananta Gulab Dhame, Age 48 years, Occ. : Farmer, R/at – Naroli, Post Supa, Taluka Baramati, District Pune 412 204.

¶12

.. Defendants

¶13

APPEARANCES

¶14

For Applicant	Advocate Ashok Tamboli.
For Defendants	Exparte.

¶15

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.25,09,644/-

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

(Delivered on 21^st June, 2024)

¶18

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.25,09,644/- together with future interest @10.15% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶19

Brief facts of the application are as under :

¶20

As per the loan application dated 10.11.2017 of defendant No.1, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Term Loan of Rs.18,90,000/to defendant No.1 vide Sanction Letter dated 11.01.2018. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 stood guarantors for the repayment of loan sanctioned and disbursed to defendant No.1.

¶21

In order to secure the aforesaid Term Loan, the defendants executed necessary loan and security documents in

(OA No. 648/2022)

Page 2 of 5

Sanap

favour of the applicant Bank along with deed of mortgage of the land bearing S. No. 53 admeasuring 70 R and S. No. 54 admeasuring 10 R situated at village Naroli, Taluka Baramati, District Pune, in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶26

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Therefore, on 13.12.2021, 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.

¶27

Hence, this application is filed.

¶28

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 15.02.2024 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶29

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Jackson Kharbat, Branch Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1 to AW-16 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶30

I have heard arguments of the learned Advocate for the

(OA No. 648/2022)

Page 3 of 5

Sanap

applicant Bank.

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 reliefs as claimed.

¶36

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.

¶37

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(A) Original Application No. 648/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶40

(B) Defendant Nos.1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.25,09,644/(Rs. Twenty Five Lakhs Nine Thousand Six Hundred Forty Four only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 31.01.2022 till full

¶41

payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

(OA No. 648/2022)

Page 4 of 5

Sanap

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage of land bearing S. No. 53 admeasuring 70 R and S. No. 54 admeasuring 10 R situated at village Naroli, Taluka Baramati, District Pune, more particularly described in the Schedule of Para No. 5.5 of the Original Application.

¶46

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

¶47

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶48

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

¶49

Place : Pune Date : 21.06.2024

¶50

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

¶51

(OA No. 648/2022)

¶52

Page 5 of 5

¶53

Sanap

Bank of Maharashtra v. Aparna Dhame

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Aparna Dhame

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 Vijaykumar Dhawan

State Bank of India versus Niranjan Desai

Union Bank of India versus Nazim Nakade

State Bank of India versus Sambhaji

State Bank of India versus Mallikarjuna Khed

Bank of Maharashtra versus Ms Khutale Construction Prop Mr. Tukaram Sarjerao Khutale