Allowed

Uco Bank v. Abhijit Kumar Mhetre

DRT29 May 2024OA/742/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues totaling approximately 44.68 lakhs from borrowers and guarantors. The court adjudicated specific amounts for three term loans and one rescheduled loan, awarded future interest at 9%, and ordered the sale of mortgaged property to recover dues.

What did the court decide?

Directing defendants to pay principal plus future interest at 9% p.a.; approving sale of mortgaged property to recover dues; issuing Recovery Certificate.

Uco Bank versus Abhijit Kumar Mhetre — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on : 26.12.2019 Registered on : 23.08.2022 Decided on : 29.05.2024 Duration : Y M D 04 05 03

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 742/2022.

¶3

UCO Bank,

¶4

A Corporate Body constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 having its head office at 10, B.T.M. Sarani, Kolkata and branch at – Market Yard, Indapur Road, Baramati, Taluka Baramati, District Pune.

¶5

.. Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 Shri Abhijeet Kumar Mhetre, Age – Adult, Occ. – Agriculture, R/o – At and Post Kazad, Taluka Indapur, District Pune 413104.

¶8

2 Shri Raju Narayan Kumbhar, Age – Adult, Occ. – Agriculture, R/o – At and Post Kazad, Taluka Indapur, District Pune 413104.

¶9

3 Shri Sanjay Sahaji Zagade, Age – Adult, Occ. – Agriculture, R/o – At and Post Kazad, Taluka Indapur, District Pune 413104.

(OA No. 742/2022)

Page 1 of 9

Sanap

4	Shri Indrajit Kumar Mhetre,
	Age – Adult, Occ. – Agriculture,
	R/o – At and Post Kazad, Taluka
	Indapur, District Pune 413104.
5	Sou. Alka Ankush Mhetre,
	Age – Adult, Occ. – Agriculture,
	R/o – At and Post Kazad, Taluka
	Indapur, District Pune 413104.
6	Shri Digambar Kisan Shinde,
	Age – Adult, Occ. – Agriculture,
	R/o – At and Post Kazad, Taluka
	Indapur, District Pune 413104.
7	Shri Ankush Kashinath Mhetre,
	Age – Adult, Occ. – Agriculture,
	R/o – At and Post Kazad, Taluka
	Indapur, District Pune 413104.
8	Shri Santosh Arjun Shinde,
	Age – Adult, Occ. – Agriculture,
	R/o – At and Post Bori, Taluka Indapur, District Pune 413104.	.. Defendants

¶14

APPEARANCES

¶15

For Applicant Advocate R.B. Ganbote. For Defendants Ex parte.

¶16

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs.27,07,507/-

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

(Delivered on 29^th May, 2024)

¶19

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.27,07,507/- together with future

(OA No. 742/2022)

Page 2 of 9

Sanap

interest @12.20 and 9% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶24

Brief facts of the application are as under :

¶25

As per the loan application dated 05.11.2012 of defendant No.1, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Term Loan of Rs.5,00,000/to defendant No.1 on 05.11.2012. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 stood guarantors for the repayment of said loan availed by defendant No.1. On 05.12.2012, the defendants have executed necessary loan documents along with deed of hypothecation in favour of the applicant Bank. Thereafter, defendant No.1 has executed acknowledgements on 26.05.2014 and 31.03.2017 and thereby confirmed the balance in Term Loan.

¶26

Again defendant No.1 approached the applicant Bank for sanction of KCC facility. Accordingly, the applicant Bank sanctioned the KCC loan facility of Rs.3,00,000/- to defendant No.1 in May 2013. Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 stood guarantors for the repayment of said loan availed by defendant No.1. On 11.05.2013, the defendants have executed necessary loan documents along with deed of hypothecation in favour of the applicant Bank. Thereafter, defendant No.1 has executed acknowledgements on 26.05.2014, 31.03.2016 and 31.03.2019

(OA No. 742/2022)

Page 3 of 9

Sanap

and thereby confirmed the balance in KCC account.

¶31

Again as per loan application of defendant No.1, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Term loan of Rs.7,37,000/- to defendant No.1 on 25.06.2013. Defendant Nos. 6 and 7 stood guarantors for the repayment of said loan availed by defendant No.1. The defendants have executed necessary loan documents along with deed of mortgage of Gat No. 619 (P) at village Kazad, Taluka Indapur, District Pune, in favour of the applicant Bank. Thereafter, defendant No.1 has executed acknowledgements on 26.05.2014 and 25.08.2017 and thereby confirmed the balance in Term Loan account.

¶32

Again as per loan application of defendant No.1, the applicant Bank sanctioned the KCC loan of Rs.1,00,000/- to defendant No.1 on 14.11.2013. Defendant Nos. 5 and 8 stood guarantors for the repayment of said loan availed by defendant No.1. The defendants have executed necessary loan documents along with deed of hypothecation in favour of the applicant Bank. Defendant No.1 has executed acknowledgements on 26.05.2014 and 31.08.2017 and thereby confirmed the balance in Term Loan account. Thereafter, on 26.05.2014, defendant Nos.1, 5 and 8 requested for rescheduling of loan. Accordingly,

(OA No. 742/2022)

Page 4 of 9

Sanap

the applicant Bank rescheduled the loan of defendant No.1 as Working Capital Term Loan of Rs.4,00,000/- on 26.05.2014. The defendants executed necessary loan documents and also executed Acknowledgements on 29.09.2016 and 31.12.2018.

¶37

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. Despite demand of payment by personal visits and telephonically, the defendants failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank.

¶38

Hence, this application is filed.

¶39

The defendant failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 05.04.2024 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶40

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Lokesh Kumar, Branch Manager and Principal Officer of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1 to AW-40 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the

(OA No. 742/2022)

Page 5 of 9

Sanap

applicant Bank.

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

¶46

Since the defendants failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of the applicant Bank. According to the applicant Bank, KCC loan account of Rs.1,00,000/- has been rescheduled to Working Capital Term Loan of Rs.4,00,000/-. However, on perusal of the relief clause, it appears that the applicant Bank has claimed KCC loan amount and also the rescheduled loan account amount. As the said KCC is rescheduled to Term Loan, therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled to recover only rescheduled Term Loan account amount. The applicant Bankis not entitled to recover KCC account amount as the same is rescheduled to Term Loan.

¶47

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 terms of hypothecated assets cannot be granted.

¶48

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @12.20% and @9% per annum. However, considering the facts of the case, I

(OA No. 742/2022)

Page 6 of 9

Sanap

am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest. Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶53

ORDER

¶54

(A) Original Application No. 742/2022 is allowed with proportionate costs.

¶55

(B) Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.4,46,807/(Rupees Four Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Eight Hundred Seven only) towards Term Loan account of Rs.5 Lakhs along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of Original Application i.e. 26.12.2019 till full payment/ realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶56

(C) Defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.3,53,974/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Four only) towards KCC account of Rs.3 Lakhs along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of Original Application i.e. 26.12.2019 till full

(OA No. 742/2022)

Page 7 of 9

Sanap

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

¶61

(D) Defendant Nos.1, 6 and 7 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.11,31,427/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Seven only) towards Term Loan account of Rs.7.37 Lakhs along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of Original Application i.e. 26.12.2019 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶62

(E) Defendant Nos.1, 5 and 8 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.6,22,605/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Six Hundred Five only) towards rescheduled KCC to Term Loan account of Rs.4 Lakhs along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of Original Application i.e. 26.12.2019 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶63

(F) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the

(OA No. 742/2022)

Page 8 of 9

Sanap

valid and subsisting mortgage of Gat No. 619 (P) at village Kazad, Taluka Indapur, District Pune, more particularly described in the Para No. 5.17 of the Original Application.

¶68

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

¶69

(H) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶70

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

¶71

Sd/(Dilip G Murumkar) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 29.05.2024 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶72

(OA No. 742/2022)

¶73

Page 9 of 9

¶74

Sanap

Uco Bank v. Abhijit Kumar Mhetre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Abhijit Kumar Mhetre

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus Uttam

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Shashikant Chandrakant Patil

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. Vijay Metalics