Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Maruti Atole

DRT12 Feb 2024OA/685/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application filed by Bank of Maharashtra for recovery of dues arising from term loans and MARC facility against six defendants, granting relief pending ex parte hearing due to non-appearance of respondents.

What did the court decide?

Sanction to recover Rs. 40.12 lakh for term loan and Rs. 4.30 lakh for MARC facility with future interest at 9% p.a.; permission to sell mortgaged properties.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Maruti Atole — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 02.06.2022 Registered on: 06.08.2022 Decided on: 12.02.2024 Duration: Y M D 1 8 10

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer)

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.685/2022

¶4

Bank of Maharashtra

¶5

A Body Corporate established under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 19070 having its registered office at “Lokmangal”, 1501 Shivajinagar, Pune – 411 005 and one of its branch office at Jalochi, Baramati – 413 102.

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr. Maruti Jayram Atole R/at – Sawal, Taluka Baramati, District Pune – 413113.

¶9

Mr. Navnath Jayram Atole R/at – Sawal, Taluka Baramati, District Pune – 413113.

¶10

Mr. Dilip Maruti Balgude R/at – Balgude Vasti, Sawal, Taluka – Baramati, District Pune – 413 113.

¶11

Mr. Harishchandra Mohan Balgude R/at – Balgude Vasti, Sawal, Taluka – Baramati, District Pune – 413 113.

¶12

Mr. Anandrao Mohan Balgude

(OA No.685/2022)

Page 1 of 7

[KAUR]

R/at – Balgude Vasti, Sawal, Taluka – Baramati, District Pune – 413 113.

¶17

Mr. Balaso Maruti Atole R/at - Sawal, Taluka – Baramati, District Pune – 413 113

¶18

…Defendants

¶19

APPEARANCES

¶20

For the Applicant Mrs. Sheetal P Deole - Advocate For Defendants Ex parte

¶21

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.45,26,624/-

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

(Delivered on 12^th February, 2024)

¶24

The applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of Rs.45,26,624/- i.e. Rs.40,83,302/- (Term Loan) together with future interest @12.50% per annum and Rs.4,43,322/- (MKCC) together with future interest @10.25% p.a from the date of the Application i.e.2^nd June, 2022 till repayment/realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶25

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶26

In or about May, 2016 defendant Nos.1 and 2 approached the applicant Bank seeking financial assistance by way of Term Loan. As per the request of defendant Nos.1 and 2, the applicant Bank on 6^th May, 2016 sanctioned and disbursed the Term Loan facility of Rs.21,40,000/- to the defendants. Defendant Nos.3 to 6 stood as guarantors for the said facility.

(OA No.685/2022)

Page 2 of 7

[KAUR]

The defendants agreed to repay the said loan in six equal yearly installments of Rs.4,47,000/- plus interest commencing from June, 2019.

¶31

Further, the defendants executed necessary loan transaction and security documents and defendant Nos.1 and 2 executed Registered Mortgage in favour of the applicant Bank as set out in paragraph No.5.6 and 5.9 of the Original Application.

¶32

Subsequently, defendant No.1 again approached the applicant Bank and requested for MKCC facility. The applicant Bank considered the said request and on 26^th October, 2016 sanctioned the MKCC facility of Rs.3,40,000/to defendant No.1. Defendant Nos.2 and 5 stood as guarantors for the said facility. Defendants executed necessary loan transaction and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank as set out in paragraph No.5.13 of the Original Application.

¶33

It is further contended by the applicant Bank that defendants have acknowledged the liability of repayment of loans in both the loan accounts by executing Balance and Security Confirmation Letter dated 1^st July, 2019 and 14^th November, 2019 respectively.

(OA No.685/2022)

Page 3 of 7

[KAUR]

After availing and utilizing credit facilities, defendants failed and neglected to repay the loan amounts. Hence, on 22^nd April, 2022 the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendants and called upon the defendants to pay the outstanding amount. Despite service of Notice, defendants failed and neglected to comply with the demand in the said Notice.

¶38

Hence, this application is filed.

¶39

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex parte against them vide Order dated 15^th January, 2024 passed below the Application (Exhibit-01).

¶40

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Atanu Bose which supports the case of the applicant elucidated in the application.

¶41

The applicant Bank has produced on record the original loan transaction and security documents at Sr.Nos.AW-1/1 to AW1/18 which corroborate the case of the applicant Bank.

¶42

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

¶43

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

(OA No.685/2022)

Page 4 of 7

[KAUR]

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

¶48

The applicant Bank has claimed Penal Interest in the sum of Rs.71,038/- in Term Loan Account and Rs.12,863/- in MKCC Account as mentioned in Particulars of Claim. However, the same cannot be granted and shall be deducted from the claim amount. Thus, the Term Loan claim amount stands reduced from Rs.40,83,302/- to Rs.40,12,264/- and MKCC claim amount stands reduced from Rs.4,43,322/to Rs.4,30,459/-.

¶49

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @12.50% per annum for Term Loan and @10.25% per annum for MKCC. However, considering the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum for all the facilities, it would be just and reasonable. Hence, I pass the following order:-

¶50

ORDER

¶51

(A) Original Application No.685/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶52

(B) Defendant Nos.1 to 6 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank towards the Term Loan Account the sum of Rs.40,12,264/- (Rupees Forty

(OA No.685/2022)

Page 5 of 7

[KAUR]

Lakhs Twelve Thousand Two Hundred Sixty-Four only) with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 2^nd June, 2022 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶57

(C) Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 5 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank towards the MKCC Account the sum of Rs.4,30,459/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Thirty Thousand Four Hundred and FiftyNine only) with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 2^nd June, 2022 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶58

(D) The aforesaid adjudicated amount of Rs.40,12,264/- (Term Loan) is secured by valid and subsisting mortgage of the immovable properties i.e. (a) All that piece and parcel of Agricultural land bearing Gat No.154 totally admeasuring 12H.08R + P.K. 00H.38R total 12H.46R situated at Village Saval, Tal. Baramati, District-Pune, (b) All that piece and parcel of Agricultural land bearing Gat No.248 totally admeasuring 8H.49R + P.K. 00H.64R total

(OA No.685/2022)

Page 6 of 7

[KAUR]

9H.13R situated at Village Saval, Tal. Baramati, District-Pune, (c) All that piece and parcel of Agricultural land bearing Gat No.249 totally admeasuring 3H.01R + P.K. 00H.12R total 3H.13R situated at Village Saval, Tal. Baramati, DistrictPune and (d) All that piece and parcel of Agricultural land bearing Gat No.202 totally admeasuring 2H.37R situated at Village Saval, Tal. Baramati, District-Pune more particularly described in paragraph Nos.5.9(a) to 5.9(d) of the Original Application.

¶63

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

¶64

(F) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶65

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

¶66

Sd/(Dilip G Murumkar) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date: 12.02.2024 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune

¶67

(OA No.685/2022)

¶68

Page 7 of 7

¶69

[KAUR]

Bank of Maharashtra v. Maruti Atole

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Maruti Atole

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus Ravindra Jagtap

Federal Bank versus Sadashiv Patil

Pratap Salunkhe and another versus Kallappanna Awade Ichalkaranji Janata Sahakari Bank Limited

Bank of Maharashtra versus Praveenkumar Menon

Canara Bank versus Gayatri Engineering Solutions Prop Shri. Milind N. Joshi

Bank of Maharashtra versus Vibhavari Ravikiran Jadhav