Allowed

Uco Bank v. Kundalik Shinde

DRT1 Oct 2024OA/805/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte recovery application, the Tribunal allowed the bank's claim for loans and rescheduled accounts from defaulting borrowers and guarantors, awarding principal sums with future interest at 9% and enforcing a mortgage on specific land shares.

What did the court decide?

Directed defendants to pay principal sums of Rs.10,62,808; Rs.4,76,494; and Rs.8,88,177 respectively with future interest at 9% per annum, and ordered sale of mortgaged land for recovery.

Uco Bank versus Kundalik Shinde — Company and Corporate | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on : 26.12.2019 Registered on : 23.08.2022 Decided on : 01.10.2024 Duration : Y M D 04 09 05

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 805/2022.

¶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 Kundalik Ganpat Shinde, Age – Adult, Occ. – Agriculture, R/o – Vayasewadi, At and Post Akole, Taluka Indapur, District Pune 411 104.

¶8

2 Shri Savta Ganpat Shinde, Age – Adult, Occ. – Agriculture, R/o – Vayasewadi, At and Post Akole, Taluka Indapur, District Pune 411 104.

¶9

3 Shri Umesh Abhiman Vayase, Age – Adult, Occ. – Agriculture, R/o – Vayasewadi, At and Post Akole, Taluka Indapur, District Pune 411 104.

(OA No. 805/2022)

Page 1 of 8

Sanap

4 Shri Sharad Raghu Mengale, Age – Adult, Occ. – Agriculture, R/o – Vayasewadi, At and Post Akole, Taluka Indapur, District Pune 411 104.

¶14

5 Shri Ankush Kashinath Mhetre, Age – Adult, Occ. – Agriculture, R/o – 195, Panmala, Kazad, Taluka Indapur, District Pune 413 104.

¶15

6 Shri Digambar Kisan Shinde, Age – Adult, Occ. – Agriculture, R/o – 37 A, Shindewadi, Post Kazad, Taluka Indapur, District Pune 413 104. .. Defendants

¶16

APPEARANCES

¶17

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

¶18

Total Claim Amount – Rs.36,67,084/-

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

(Delivered on 01^st October, 2024)

¶21

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.36,67,084/- together with future interest @14.25 and 9% per annum respectively from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶22

Brief facts of the application are as under :

¶23

As per the loan application of defendant Nos.1 and 2, the

(OA No. 805/2022)

Page 2 of 8

Sanap

applicant Bank sanctioned the Term Loan of Rs.4,84,785/- to defendant Nos.1 and 2 on 26.02.2010. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 stood guarantors for the repayment of loan availed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

¶28

Again as per the loan application of defendant Nos.1 and 2, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Term Loan of Rs.3,00,000/- to defendant Nos.1 and 2 on 25.03.2010. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 stood guarantors for the repayment of loan availed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

¶29

Thereafter, again as per the loan application of defendant Nos.1 and 2, the applicant Bank sanctioned the KCC of Rs.5,02,000/- to defendant Nos.1 and 2 on 23.09.2013. Defendant Nos. 5 and 6 stood guarantors for the repayment of loan availed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

¶30

Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were already enjoying KCC of Rs.1,02,000/- from the applicant Bank and as per the request of defendant Nos.1 and 2, the applicant Bank enhanced the KCC by Rs.7,00,000/- to Rs.8,02,000/- on 03.10.2013. Defendant Nos. 5 and 6 stood guarantors for the repayment of loan availed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

¶31

Thereafter, on 09.07.2014, defendant Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6

(OA No. 805/2022)

Page 3 of 8

Sanap

approached the applicant Bank and requested to reschedule of loan. Accordingly, the applicant Bank rescheduled the loan on 09.07.2014 to Working Capital Term Loan of Rs.3,00,000/-.

¶36

Again defendant Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 approached the applicant Bank and requested to reschedule of loan. Accordingly, the applicant Bank rescheduled the loan on 09.07.2014 to Working Capital Term Loan of Rs.5,50,000/-.

¶37

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants have executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have also executed deed of mortgage of their respective share in land bearing Gat No. 14(P) situated at village Shindewadi, Taluka Indapur, District Pune and Gat No. 104(P) situated at Village Vayasewadi, Taluka Indapur, District Pune, in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶38

The defendants have executed acknowledgements from time to time and thereby confirmed the balance in the loan accounts.

¶39

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

(OA No. 805/2022)

Page 4 of 8

Sanap

of the defendants as Non Performing Asset in accordance with guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Despite demand by personal visits and telephonically, the defendants failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶44

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 25.04.2024 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶45

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-45 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶46

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

¶47

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, two loan accounts have been rescheduled to Working Capital Term Loan of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.5,50,000/- each. However, on perusal

(OA No. 805/2022)

Page 5 of 8

Sanap

of the relief clause, it appears that the applicant Bank has claimed both KCC loan amounts and also both rescheduled working capital loan account amounts. As the said KCC loans are rescheduled, therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled to recover only rescheduled KCC Loan account amounts. The applicant Bank is not entitled to recover both KCC account amounts as the same are rescheduled.

¶52

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.

¶53

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest respectively @14.25 and 9% 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.

¶54

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶55

ORDER

¶56

(A) Original Application No. 805/2022 is allowed with proportionate costs.

¶57

(B) Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 either jointly or severally shall

(OA No. 805/2022)

Page 6 of 8

Sanap

pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.10,62,808/(Rupees Ten Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand Eight Hundred Eight only) 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

(C) Defendant Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.4,76,494/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Four only) 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

(D) Defendant Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.8,88,177/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand One Hundred Seventy Seven only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of Original Application i.e. 26.12.2019 till full

(OA No. 805/2022)

Page 7 of 8

Sanap

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

¶68

(E) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage of the respective share of defendant Nos.1 and 2 in land bearing Gat No. 14(P) situated at village Shindewadi, Taluka Indapur, District Pune and Gat No. 104(P) situated at Village Vayasewadi, Taluka Indapur, District Pune, more particularly described in the Para No. 5.18 of the Original Application.

¶69

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

¶70

(G) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶71

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

¶72

Place : Pune Date : 01.10.2024

¶73

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

¶74

(OA No. 805/2022)

¶75

Page 8 of 8

¶76

Sanap

Uco Bank v. Kundalik Shinde

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Kundalik Shinde

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

Union Bank of India versus Maya Kale

Bank of Baroda versus Sunita Dhaigude

The South Indian Bank Ltd. versus Mrs. Rajkumari Ashok Jhosi, Prop. M/S. Raj Enterprises

Bank of India versus Babasaheb Rakh

Uco Bank versus Dyaneshwar Thombare

Hdfc Bank versus Prakash Shrimant Gouraj, Prop. M/S. Prakash Shrimant Gouraj