Allowed

Uco Bank v. Ranjit Narute

DRT3 Aug 2024OA/806/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of term loans and KCC dues totaling Rs. 61,55,125/- from defendants who failed to repay. Future interest was set at 9% p.a., and the bank was directed to sell the mortgaged property and issued a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Order to pay Rs. 61,55,125/- plus 9% future interest; direction to sell mortgaged property; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Uco Bank versus Ranjit Narute — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 20.08.2019 Registered on: 22.07.2022 Decided on: 03.08.2024 Duration: Y M D 04 11 13

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE. (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.806/2022.

¶3

UCO Bank ,

¶4

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

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Mr. Ranjit Ramdas Narute

¶8

2. Mr. Ramdas Gangaram Narute

¶9

3 . Mr. Mahadeo Dagdu Tule

¶10

Mr. Rajendra Duryodhan Narute

¶11

All Residing At and Post Kazad,

¶12

Taluka – Indapur,

¶13

District – Pune - 413 104.

¶14

… Defendants

¶15

APPEARANCES

¶16

For the Applicant Mr. R.B.Ganbote - Advocate For the Defendants Ex parte. TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.61,55,125/-.

(OA No.806/2022)

Page 1 of 6

[ANIL]

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 3^rd August, 2024)

¶22

The Applicant Bank filed present application for recovery of aggregate sum of Rs.61,55,125/- together with future interest thereon @15.75% per annum in the Term Loan Accounts and @12.80% in KCC account with monthly rests respectively from the date of filing of the application i.e.20.08.2019 till repayment/realization of entire dues from the defendants.

¶23

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶24

Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 approached and requested the Applicant Bank on 13.12.2014 for a Term Loan of Rs.17,00,000/- for Land Development; Rs.10,20,000/- for Plantation; Rs.10,20,000/- for Pipeline and Irrigation; and Rs.11,27,723/- for KCC to Defendant No.1 and 2. Defendant No.3 and 4 offered themselves as Guarantors for Securing Term Loans.

¶25

The Applicant Bank favourably considered the request of Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and sanctioned an aggregate Credit Facility of Rs.48,67,723/i.e.Rs.17,00,000/for land development; Rs.10,20,000/- for Plantation; Rs.10,20,000’/for Pipeline and Irrigation and Rs.11,27,723/- as KCC, on 26.12.2014, on certain terms and conditions.

(OA No.806/2022)

Page 2 of 6

[ANIL]

In order to secure the said Term Loan facilities and KCC, the defendants executed necessary loan transaction and security documents, in favour of the Applicant Bank. Further, defendant No.1 and 2 also executed Simple Mortgage Deed on 29.12.2014 and mortgaged the below mentioned property in favour of the Applicant Bank, for securing the aggregate Credit Facility of Rs.48,67,723/-.

¶30

All that piece and parcel of Gat No.37(P), admeasuring 00 Hector 20 Are, Gat No.75(P) admeasuring 00 Hector 26 Are, Gat No.76(P) admeasuring 00 Hector 53 Are, Gat No.83(P) admeasuring 01 Hector 18 Are plus PK 00 Hector 14 Are, Gat No.93/2(P) admeasuring 00 Hector 20 Are and Gat No.168(P) admeasuring 00 Hector 85 Are at village Kazad, Taluka Indapur, within the limits of Grampanchayat Kazad and also within the limits of Registration District Pune, Sub Registration District Baramati, District Pune, as mentioned in Para No.5.7 of the Original Application.

¶31

Defendant No.2 has executed acknowledgment on 30.06.2017 in favour of the Applicant Bank and confirmed the balance in all four Loan Accounts of Defendant Nos.1 and 2, with the Applicant Bank.

¶32

It is contended that the defendants have not paid the installments in the Loan Account and interest in Cash Credit Account on time and they have committed breach of the

(OA No.806/2022)

Page 3 of 6

[ANIL]

sanction terms and conditions and hence, the accounts of defendants with the Applicant Bank turned Non Performing Assets as per the Reserve Bank of India norms.

¶37

Thereafter, the Applicant Bank on 29.07.2019 issued Recall Notice through Advocate R. B. Ganbote to the defendants calling upon them to pay the outstanding amounts. Despite service of Recall Notice, defendants failed and neglected to comply with the demand in the said Notice. Hence, this application is filed.

¶38

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex parte against them vide Order dated 22.04.2024 passed below the Application (Exhibit-01).

¶39

The Applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Lokesh Kumar, Chief Manager, which supports the case of the applicant elucidated in the application.

¶40

The Applicant Bank has produced in evidence the original loan documents at Exhs.- AW-1 to AW-16 which corroborate the case of the Applicant Bank.

¶41

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

(OA No.806/2022)

Page 4 of 6

[ANIL]

Since the defendants failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Applicant Bank. Therefore, the Applicant Bank is entitled for reliefs as claimed.

¶46

The Applicant Bank has claimed future interest @15.75% p.a. in Term Loan Accounts and @12.80% p.a. in the KCC Account. Considering the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @ 9% per annum (simple) for all the facilities, it would be just and reasonable.

¶47

Hence, I pass the following order: -

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(A) Original Application No.806/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶50

(B) Defendant Nos.1 to 4 either jointly or severally shall pay to the Applicant Bank towards all Term Loans of Rs.51,09,964/- (Rupees Fifty One Lakhs Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Four only) and towards KCC Account of Rs.10,45,161/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Fourty Five Thousand One Hundred Sixty One Only) Total sum of Rs.61,55,125/- (Rupees Sixty One Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand One Hundred Twenty Five only) with future interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e.20.08.2019 till payment/ realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶51

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage of the following immovable property –

(OA No.806/2022)

Page 5 of 6

[ANIL]

All that piece and parcel of Gat No.37(P) admeasuring 00 Hector 20 Are, Gat No.75(P) admeasuring 00 Hector 26 Are, Gat No.76(P) admeasuring 00 Hector 53 Are, Gat No.83(P) admeasuring 01 Hector 18 Are plus PK 00 Hector 14 Are, Gat No.93/2(P) admeasuring 00 Hector 20 Are and Gat No.168(P) admeasuring 00 Hector 85 Are at village Kazad, Taluka Indapur, within the limits of Grampanchayat Kazad and within the limits of Registration District Pune, Sub Registration District Baramati, District Pune, as mentioned in Para No.5.7 of the Original Application.

¶56

(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 Bank and the defendants.

¶59

Sd/(Dilip G. Murumkar) Place: Pune Presiding Officer Date: 03.08.2024 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶60

(OA No.806/2022)

¶61

Page 6 of 6

¶62

[ANIL]

Uco Bank v. Ranjit Narute

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Ranjit Narute

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 W. R. Metal Engg and Research Center and W. R. Infotech Prop Shri. Rohan Balasaheb Waghmare

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S. Mahesh Patil and Company

Bank of India versus M/s Medhekar Foods And Beverages Industry

Bank of Baroda versus Vijay Zankjar

State Bank of India versus Sanjay Shinde

Federal Bank versus Amarshing Phadnaik