Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Dattatray Kate

DRT6 Jul 2024OA/808/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Original Application under the Recovery Tribunal, Bank of Maharashtra sought recovery of loan dues. The Tribunal, finding the defendants absent and the bank's evidence credible, allowed the application, authorising recovery of Rs.30,58,618/- plus 9% annual interest instead of the claimed penal amount.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.30,58,618/- with future interest at 9% per annum from 09.09.2019; sale of mortgaged property; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Dattatray Kate — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 09.09.2019 Registered on: 06.05.2022 Decided on: 06.07.2024 Duration: Y M D 04 09 27

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.808/2022.

¶3

Bank of Maharashtra ,

¶4

A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisitions & Transfer of Undertakings) Act V of 1970 having its Head Office at “ Lokmangal ” 1501, Shivajinagar, Pune-5 and Branch amongst other places at Indapur Municipal Council Building, Opp. S.T. Stand, Indapur, District –Pune-413 106, through Chief Manager, Shri. Nitin Padmanabh Bhargave.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Mr. Dattatray Sahebrao Kate Age-adult, Occ.:- Agriculture,

¶8

2. Mr. Sahebrao Ganpat Kate Age-adult, Occ.:- Agriculture,

¶9

3. Mr. Anil Rangnath Ranade Age-adult, Occ.:- Agriculture,

¶10

Mr. Amod Anil Ranade Age-adult, Occ.:- Agriculture,

¶11

5. Mr. Ankush Khandu Kate Age-adult, Occ.:- Agriculture,

(OA No.808/2022)

Page 1 of 7

[ANIL]

6. Mr. Jagannath Vishwanath Pawar Age-adult, Occ.:- Agriculture, All R/at Post Avsari, Taluka Indapur, District Pune-413 106.

¶16

…Defendants

¶17

APPEARANCES

¶18

For the Applicant For the Defendant

¶19

Advocate R.B.Ganbote Ex parte

¶20

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.31,00,276/JUDGMENT (Delivered on 6^th July, 2024)

¶21

The Applicant Bank has filed present application for recovery of Rs.31,00,276/together with future interest @12.50% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing the Original Application i.e.09.09.2019 till repayment/realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶22

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶23

The Applicant Bank states that Defendant Nos.1 to 6 approached the Applicant Bank and requested for Term Loan of Rs.21,50,000/- for Lift Irrigation Scheme to Defendant Nos.1 to 4. Defendant No.5 and 6 are the Guarantors to Defendant Nos.1 to 4 for securing the said Term Loan. The Applicant Bank vide its Sanction Letter

(OA No.808/2022)

Page 2 of 7

[ANIL]

dated 19.11.2013, granted Term Loan facility of Rs.21,50,000/- to the defendant Nos. 1 to 4.

¶28

In order to secure the aforesaid Term Loan facilities, the defendants have executed loan and security documents as set out in Para No.5.5 of the Original Application in favor of the Applicant Bank.

¶29

In addition to this, defendants have executed Declarative Mortgage for securing the repayment under the Term Loan Facility of Rs.21,50,000/- of the immovable property of the land known as Gat No.124 admeasuring 01 Hector 49 Are; Gat No.121(P) admeasuring 00 Hector 30 Are; Gat No.123, admeasuring 01 Hector 04 Are; Gat No.125 admeasuring 01 Hector 13 Are; Gat No.121(P) admeasuring 00 Hector 40 Are; Gat No.122/2 admeasuring 00 Hector 71 Are; Gat No.139 admeasuring 00 Hector 32 Are; Gat No.141 admeasuring 00 Hector 77 Are; Gat No.123 admeasuring 01 Hector 05 Are; Gat No.141 admeasuring 00 Hector 76 Are and Gat No.142 admeasuring 00 Hector 40 Are at village Avasari, Taluka Indapur, within the limits of Registration District Pune, Sub Registration District Indapur, District Pune, more particularly mentioned in Para No.5.7 of the Original Application.

(OA No.808/2022)

Page 3 of 7

[ANIL]

The Applicant Bank contended that the defendants have committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the said Term Loan Account. Hence, the Applicant Bank has classified the account of the defendants as Non-Performing Asset in accordance with the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Therefore, on 26.08.2019 the Applicant Bank sent a Recall Notice to the defendants, through Advocate Ramesh B. Ganbote. Despite Service of notice, the defendants failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the Applicant Bank.

¶34

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 23.04.2024 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶36

The Applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Nitin P. Bhargave and has produced on record the Original Loan Transaction documents at Exhs.AW-1 to AW-14, which corroborates the case of the Applicant Bank.

¶37

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

(OA No.808/2022)

Page 4 of 7

[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 the reliefs claimed.

¶42

The Applicant Bank has claimed Penal Interest of Rs.41,658/-, which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.31,00,276/- is reduced to Rs.30,58,618/-. Thus, the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover Rs.30,58,618/- from the defendants.

¶43

The Applicant Bank has claimed future interest @12.50% per annum with monthly rests. 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.

¶44

Hence, I pass the following order:-

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(A) Original Application No.808/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶47

(B) Defendant Nos.1 to 6 either jointly or severally shall pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of

(OA No.808/2022)

Page 5 of 7

[ANIL]

Rs.30,58,618/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Eighteen only ) with future interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 09.09.2019 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶52

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the Mortgage regarding immovable property i.e. Gat No.124 admeasuring 01 Hector 49 Are; Gat No.121(P) admeasuring 00 Hector 30 Are; Gat No.123, admeasuring 01 Hector 04 Are; Gat No.125 admeasuring 01 Hector 13 Are; Gat No.121(P) admeasuring 00 Hector 40 Are; Gat No.122/2 admeasuring 00 Hector 71 Are; Gat No.139 admeasuring 00 Hector 32 Are; Gat No.141 admeasuring 00 Hector 77 Are; Gat No.123 admeasuring 01 Hector 05 Are; Gat No.141 admeasuring 00 Hector 76 Are and Gat No.142 admeasuring 00 Hector 40 Are at village Avasari, Taluka Indapur, within the limits of Registration District Pune, Sub Registration District Indapur, District Pune, more particularly mentioned in Para No.5.7 of the Original Application.

¶53

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

¶54

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

(OA No.808/2022)

Page 6 of 7

[ANIL]

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

¶59

Place : Pune Date: 06.07.2024

¶60

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

¶61

(OA No.808/2022)

¶62

Page 7 of 7

¶63

[ANIL]

Bank of Maharashtra v. Dattatray Kate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Dattatray Kate

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 (Corporation Bank) versus Dilip

State Bank of India versus Mahadev Pawshe

Punjab National Bank versus M/S. F - Fork Founders, Prop. Noorjahan Zairuddin Tamboli (After Marriage Noorjahan Zairuddin Tamboli)

Uco Bank versus Prithviraj Narutepatil

Uco Bank versus Sadhu Bansode

Bank of Maharashtra versus Tanveer Tole