Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Adinath Weaving Mills Prop. Mrs Pooja Shivraj Lole

DRT13 Aug 2024OA/744/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Bank of Baroda for recovery of dues of Rs.89,79,265/- from the borrower and guarantors. The court reduced the original claim by deducting penal interest and adjusted the future interest rate to 9% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs.89,79,265/- with future interest at 9% p.a. from 26.11.2019. Application for sale of mortgaged property and issue of Recovery Certificate granted.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Adinath Weaving Mills… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on : 26.11.2019 Registered on : 23.08.2022 Decided on : 13.08.2024 Duration : Y M D 04 08 17

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 744/2022.

¶3

Bank of Baroda,

¶4

A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 having its Head Office at Mandvi, Baroda 390006 and its branch at – Ichalkaranji.

¶5

.. Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 M/s. Adinath Weaving Mills, Through its proprietor - Mrs. Pooja Shivraj Lole, R/o : Ichalkaranji, Tal. Hatkanangale, District Kolhapur 416 115.

¶8

2 Mrs. Kavita Adinath Lole, R/o : Ichalkaranji, Tal. Hatkanangale, District Kolhapur 416 115.

¶9

3 Mr. Shivraj Kashinath Lole, R/o : Ichalkaranji, Tal. Hatkanangale, District Kolhapur 416 115.

(OA No. 744/2022)

Page 1 of 7

Sanap

4 Mr. Jagannath Kashinath Lole, R/o : Ichalkaranji, Tal. Hatkanangale, District Kolhapur 416 115.

¶14

5 Mrs. Anita Ramchandra Davande, R/o : Ichalkaranji, Tal. Hatkanangale, District Kolhapur 416 115.

¶15

6 Mr. Gajanan Vaman Davande, R/o : Ichalkaranji, Tal. Hatkanangale, District Kolhapur 416 115.

¶16

7 Mr. Ramchandra Vaman Davande, R/o : Ichalkaranji, Tal. Hatkanangale, .. Defendants

¶17

District Kolhapur 416 115.

¶18

APPEARANCES

¶19

For Applicant	Advocate Pooja Mali for M.V. Kini & Co.
For Defendants	Exparte.

¶20

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.90,83,110/-

¶21

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 13^th August, 2024)

¶22

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.90,83,110/- together with future interest @12.90% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶23

Brief facts of the application are as under :

¶24

As per the loan application dated 30.09.2016 of defendant No.1,

(OA No. 744/2022)

Page 2 of 7

Sanap

the applicant Bank sanctioned the following loan facilities to defendant No.1.

¶29

Name of the facility	Amount	Date of sanction
Term Loan I	41.24 Lakhs	30.09.2016
Term Loan II	164.57 Lakhs	30.09.2016
Letter of Credit	147.00 Lakhs	30.09.2016

¶30

Defendant Nos.2 to 7 stood guarantors for the repayment of loan availed by defendant No.1. In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank along with deed of mortgage of (A) Gat No. 93, Plot No. B, admeasuring 700 sq. mtrs. at Mouje Khotwadi, Taluka Hatkanangle, District Kolhapur; (B) Gat No. 327 Plot No. 2 admeasuring 3450 sq. ft., Plot No. 3 admeasuring 3450 sq. ft. and Plot No. 4 admeasuring 314.22 sq. mtrs. Sangamnagar, at Mouje Khotwadi, Taluka Hatkanangle, District Kolhapur and (C) C.T.S. No. 10040, 10040/1, 10040/2, 10040/3, 10040/4 and 10040/5 admeasuring 267.15 sq. ft. Sutarmala at Mouje Khotwadi, Taluka Hatkanangle, District Kolhapur; in favour of the applicant Bank.

(OA No. 744/2022)

Page 3 of 7

Sanap

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the Term Loan I and Term Loan II accounts. Hence, on 28.10.2018, 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 20.06.2019, 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. Hence, this application is filed.

¶35

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 17.04.2024 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶36

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Rahul Vijay Mane, Authorized Signatory of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1 to AW-18 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶37

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

(OA No. 744/2022)

Page 4 of 7

Sanap

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.

¶42

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.

¶43

The applicant Bank has claimed Penal Interest of Rs.1,03,845/(Rs.54,555/- for Term Loan I + Rs.49,290/- for Term Loan II), which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.90,83,110/- is reduced to Rs.89,79,265/-.

¶44

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @12.90% 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.

¶45

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(A) Original Application No. 744/2022 is allowed with costs.

(OA No. 744/2022)

Page 5 of 7

Sanap

(B) Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.89,79,265/(Rupees Eighty Nine Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Five only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 26.11.2019 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶52

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage of (A) Gat No. 93, Plot No. B, admeasuring 700 sq. mtrs. at Mouje Khotwadi, Taluka Hatkanangle, District Kolhapur; (B) Gat No. 327 Plot No. 2 admeasuring 3450 sq. ft., Plot No. 3 admeasuring 3450 sq. ft. and Plot No. 4 admeasuring 314.22 sq. mtrs. Sangamnagar, at Mouje Khotwadi, Taluka Hatkanangle, District Kolhapur and (C) C.T.S. No. 10040, 10040/1, 10040/2, 10040/3, 10040/4 and 10040/5 admeasuring 267.15 sq. ft. Sutarmala at Mouje Khotwadi, Taluka Hatkanangle, District Kolhapur, more particularly described in the Schedule B of the Original Application.

(OA No. 744/2022)

Page 6 of 7

Sanap

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

¶57

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶58

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

¶59

Place : Pune Date : 13.08.2024.

¶60

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

¶61

(OA No. 744/2022)

¶62

Page 7 of 7

¶63

Sanap

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Adinath Weaving Mills Prop. Mrs Pooja Shivraj Lole

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Adinath Weaving Mills Prop. Mrs Pooja Shivraj Lole

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

Federal Bank versus Housrao Gadekar

Bank of Maharashtra versus Uattamrao Phadtare

Canara Bank versus Shri Shrikant Basveshwar Walekar Prop. Spag Guages and Instrument

Canara Bank versus Chandrakant Bandgar

Bank of India versus Riyaz Patkan

Bank of India versus Arjun Khade