Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Arun

DRT16 May 2024OA/667/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bank of Maharashtra filed a recovery application against four defendants for default in loan repayments. Proceeding ex-parte, the Tribunal allowed the application, directing payment of the principal amount reduced by deducting penal interest, with future interest at reduced rates and permissions to sell mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Direct payment of reduced principal amounts with future interest and permission to sell mortgaged property.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Arun — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on : 19.03.2022 Registered on : 22.07.2022 Decided on : 16.05.2024 Duration : Y M D 02 01 27

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 667/2022.

¶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 Kudal, Satara.

¶4

.. Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1 Arun Jagdeo Shinde, Age : Adult, Occ. : Agriculture,

¶7

2 Bajirao Baburao Shinde, Age : Adult, Occ. : Agriculture,

¶8

3 Sambhaji Dadaso Shinde, Age : Adult, Occ. : Agriculture,

¶9

4 Shrikant Sambhaji Shinde, Age : Adult, Occ. : Agriculture, All R/o : Post Indavali, Taluka Kudal, District Satara 415 514.

.. Defendants

(OA No. 667/2022)

Page 1 of 7

Sanap

APPEARANCES

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

¶16

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.21,45,276=58.

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

(Delivered on 16^th May, 2024)

¶19

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.21,45,276=58 together with future interest for MKCC Loan @7% and for Term Loan @13.40% per annum respectively from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendant Nos. 1 and 4 and defendant Nos.1 to 3 respectively.

¶20

Brief facts of the application are as under : As per the loan application dated 14.08.2014 of defendant No.1, the applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed the Term Loan of Rs.7,85,000/- to defendant No.1 vide Sanction Letter dated 15.08.2014. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 stood guarantors for the repayment of loan sanctioned and disbursed to defendant No.1. In order to secure the aforesaid Term Loan, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank along with deed of hypothecation and deed

(OA No. 667/2022)

Page 2 of 7

Sanap

of mortgage of land Gat No. 277 situated at village Songaon, Taluka Jawali, District Satara, in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶25

Thereafter, again defendant No.1 approached the applicant Bank for availing MKCC facility. Accordingly, the applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed the MKCC facility of Rs.2,50,000/- to defendant No.1 vide Sanction Letter dated 18.12.2014. Defendant No.4 stood guarantor for the said facility. For that facility, defendant Nos. 1 and 4 executed necessary loan and security documents along with deed of hypothecation and deed of mortgage of land Gat No. 277 situated at village Songaon, Taluka Jawali, District Satara, in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶26

The defendants also executed Balance and Security Confirmation Letters on 10.08.2017 and 30.09.2019 and thereby acknowledged the balance standing at the foot of accounts.

¶27

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed 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 10.03.2022, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendants.

(OA No. 667/2022)

Page 3 of 7

Sanap

Despite service of Notice, the defendants failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank.

¶32

Hence, this application is filed.

¶33

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 19.02.2024 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶34

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Sarojkumar Bhagat, Branch Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1-1 to AW-1-20 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶35

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

¶36

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.

¶37

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

(OA No. 667/2022)

Page 4 of 7

Sanap

terms of hypothecated assets cannot be granted.

¶42

The applicant Bank has claimed Penal Interest for MKCC Loan of Rs.15,056/- and for Term Loan of Rs.52,789/- respectively, which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total MKCC Loan claim amount of Rs.4,70,135/- is reduced to Rs.4,55,079/- and the total Term Loan claim amount of Rs.16,75,142/- is reduced to Rs.16,22,353/-.

¶43

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest for MKCC Loan @7% and for Term Loan @13.40% per annum respectively. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted for MKCC Loan @7% and for Term Loan @9% per annum respectively (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶44

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(A) Original Application No.667/2022 is allowed with proportionate costs.

¶47

(B) Defendant Nos.1 and 4 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.4,55,079/-

¶48

(Rs. Four Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand Seventy Nine

(OA No. 667/2022)

Page 5 of 7

Sanap

only) towards MKCC loan facility along with future interest @7% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 19.03.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶53

(C) Defendant Nos.1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.16,22,353/(Rs. Sixteen Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Three only) towards Term loan along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 19.03.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶54

(D) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage of land Gat No. 277 situated at village Songaon, Taluka Jawali, District Satara, more particularly described in the Schedule of the Original Application.

¶55

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

(OA No. 667/2022)

Page 6 of 7

Sanap

(F) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶60

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

¶61

Sd/(Dilip G Murumkar) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 16.05.2024 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶62

(OA No. 667/2022)

¶63

Page 7 of 7

¶64

Sanap

Bank of Maharashtra v. Arun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Arun

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

Hdfc Bank versus Pratik Goraksha Saswade

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus Rajendra

Bank of Maharashtra versus Vitthal

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

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus Uttam