Allowed

Federal Bank v. Dhanaji Atole

DRT4 Jun 2024OA/74/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Federal Bank Limited for recovery of dues totaling Rs. 25.50 lakhs plus future interest from five defendants who failed to appear. The court modified the claimed interest rate and secured the recovery via a mortgage on agricultural land.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 25,50,425/- with future interest @9% p.a. secured by mortgage on agricultural land; direction to sell property.

Federal Bank versus Dhanaji Atole — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on : 04.01.2022 Registered on : 07.02.2022 Decided on : 04.06.2024 Duration : Y M D 02 05 00

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 74/2022.

¶3

The Federal Bank Limited, A Banking Company within the meaning of Indian Companies Act, 2013 (18/2013) having its registered office at Federal Towers, Bank Junction, Alwaye, Ernakulum District, Kerala and branch at – Shop No.1, Building No.E, Sanghavi Township, Bhigwan Road, Baramati 413102.

¶4

.. Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1 Mr. Dhanaji Genba Atole, Age 47 years, Occ. Agriculturist,

¶7

2 Mrs. Shakuntala Genba Atole, Age 71 years, Occ. Agriculturist,

¶8

3 Mrs. Surekha Dhanaji Atole, Age 39 years, Occ. Agriculturist,

¶9

4 Mr. Shivaji Genba Atole, Age 34 years, Occ. Agriculturist,

(OA No. 74/2022)

Page 1 of 6

Sanap

5 Mr. Genba Namdev Atole, Age 75 years, Occ. Agriculturist, All R/o : Gojubavi, Post Undawadi, K.P. Tal. Baramati, Dist. Pune 413102. .. Defendants

¶14

APPEARANCES

¶15

For Applicant For Defendants	Advocate Nikhil Barsode. Exparte.

¶16

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.25,72,823=50

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

(Delivered on 04^th June, 2024)

¶19

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.25,72,823=50 (by rouding Rs.25,72,824/-) together with future interest @11.70% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶20

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶21

Defendant No.1 is the borrower and defendant Nos. 2 to 5 are the co-borrowers. As per the loan application of the defendants, the applicant Bank sanctioned the AMTL Federal Kisan Suvidha Loan of Rs.12,50,000/- for installation of lift irrigation system and FKCC of Rs.7,00,000/- for crop cultivation to the defendants vide Sanction Letter dated

(OA No. 74/2022)

Page 2 of 6

Sanap

21.06.2017.

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants executed necessary loan and security documents along with deed of mortgage of Agricultural land bearing Gat Nos. 243, 286, 297 and 29 situated at village Gojubhavi, Taluka Baramati, District Pune, in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶27

The defendants have also executed Balance Confirmation letter dated 31.03.2020 confirming the balance due in both loan accounts.

¶28

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Hence, on 30.03.2021, 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 27.07.2021, 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.

¶29

Hence, this application is filed.

¶30

The defendant failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated

(OA No. 74/2022)

Page 3 of 6

Sanap

02.04.2024 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶35

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Sachin Naasaheb Kadbane, Authorized Signatory of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1-1 to AW-1-14 along with list (Exhibit 10), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶36

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

¶37

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.

¶38

The applicant Bank has claimed Penal Interest of Rs.22,399/-, which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.25,72,824/- is reduced to Rs.25,50,425/-. Thus, the applicant Bank is entitled to recover Rs.25,50,425/from the defendants.

¶39

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @11.70% per annum. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the

(OA No. 74/2022)

Page 4 of 6

Sanap

opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶44

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(A) Original Application No. 74/2022 is allowed with proportionate costs.

¶47

(B) Defendant Nos.1 to 5 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.25,50,425/(Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Fifty Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Five only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 04.01.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶48

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage of the Agricultural land bearing Gat Nos. 243, 286, 297 and 29 situated at village Gojubhavi, Taluka Baramati, District Pune, more particularly described in the Schedule-I of the Original Application.

¶49

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged

(OA No. 74/2022)

Page 5 of 6

Sanap

property to recover its dues.

¶54

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶55

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

¶56

Place : Pune Date : 04.06.2024

¶57

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

¶58

(OA No. 74/2022)

¶59

Page 6 of 6

¶60

Sanap

Federal Bank v. Dhanaji Atole

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Federal Bank v. Dhanaji 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 India versus Somnath

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. Vijay Metalics

Bank of Maharashtra versus Pramod Shinde

Indian Overseas Bank versus Shruti Lohiya

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Neel Motors LLP. through Its Partners

Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank versus Subhash Beldar