Allowed

Uco Bank v. Dyaneshwar Thombare

DRT3 Oct 2024OA/809/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of dues totaling Rs.31,23,412/- with future interest at 9% p.a. against defaulting borrowers who failed to appear, securing the decree against mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs.31,23,412/- with future interest at 9% p.a., secured by mortgaged property, and issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Uco Bank versus Dyaneshwar Thombare — Dowry and Cruelty | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 19.08.2019 Registered on: 27.04.2022 Decided on: 03.10.2024 Duration: Y M D 05 01 14

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE. (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.809/2022.

¶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. Dnyaneshwar Namdeo Thombare

¶8

2. Mr. Atul Namdeo Thombre

¶9

3 . Mr. Dilip Shankar Dhalpe

¶10

All Residing At and Post Bori,

¶11

Taluka – Indapur,

¶12

District – Pune - 413 104.

¶13

… Defendants

¶14

APPEARANCES

¶15

For the Applicant Mr. R.B.Ganbote - Advocate For the Defendants Ex parte. TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.31,23,412/-.

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

(Delivered on 3^rd October, 2024)

(OA No.809/2022)

Page 1 of 5

[ANIL]

The Applicant Bank filed present application for recovery of aggregate sum of Rs.31,23,412/- together with future interest thereon @15.75% per annum in the Term Loan Accounts and @12.80% in KCC account with half yearly rests respectively from the date of filing of the application i.e.19.08.2019 till repayment/realization of entire dues from the defendants.

¶22

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶23

Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 approached and requested the Applicant Bank on 01.08.2013 for a Term Loan of Rs.4,97,000/- for purchase of Tractor; Rs.5,73,000/- for Plantation; Rs.06,50,000/- for Water Storage Tank; and Rs.3,00,000/- for KCC to Defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 and 3 offered themselves as Guarantors for Securing Term Loans.

¶24

The Applicant Bank considered request of Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and sanctioned Term Loans of Rs.4,97,000/-; Rs.5,73,000/-; Rs.650,000/- and KCC account of Rs.3,00,000/and rescheduled account of Rs3,00,000/-, from time to time on certain terms and conditions.

¶25

In order to secure the said Term Loan facilities and KCC account, the defendants have executed necessary loan transaction and security documents, in favour of the Applicant Bank as set out in Para Nos.5.5, 5.12, 5.19 of the Original Application. Further, defendant No.1 also executed

(OA No.809/2022)

Page 2 of 5

[ANIL]

Simple Mortgage Deeds on 28.08.2013, 05.08.2013, on 20.12.2013 and mortgaged the below mentioned property in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶30

All that piece and parcel of Gat No.3753/1(P), admeasuring 01 Hector 29 Are, at village Bari, Taluka Indapur, within the limits of Bori Grampanchayat, and also within the limits of Registration District of Pune, Sub Registration District Indapur, District Pune, as mentioned in Para Nos.5.7, 5.14 & 5.21 of the Original Application.

¶31

Defendant No.1 has executed acknowledgments on 31.03.2016 and 31.03.2018 in favour of the Applicant Bank and confirmed the balance in all four Loan Accounts of Defendant No.1, 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 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.

¶33

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.

(OA No.809/2022)

Page 3 of 5

[ANIL]

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 06.02.2024 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-41 which corroborate the case of the Applicant Bank.

¶41

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

¶42

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.

¶43

The Applicant Bank has claimed future interest @15.75% p.a. in Term Loan Accounts and @12.80% p.a. in the KCC Accounts. 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.

(OA No.809/2022)

Page 4 of 5

[ANIL]

10. Hence, I pass the following order: -

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(A) Original Application No.809/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶50

(B) Defendant Nos.1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay to the Applicant Bank Rs.31,23,412/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Four Hundred Twelve only) i.e. towards all Term Loans Rs.23,90,676/- and KCC Accounts of Rs.7,32,736/with future interest @ 9.00% p.a. (Simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e.19.08.2019 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶51

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting Simple Mortgage Deeds of the following immovable property i.e. all that piece and parcel of Gat No.3753/1(P), admeasuring 01 Hector 29 Are, at village Bari, Taluka Indapur, within the limits of Bori Grampanchayat, and also within the limits of Registration District of Pune, Sub Registration District Indapur, District Pune, as mentioned in Para Nos.5.7, 5.14, 5.21 of the Original Application.

¶52

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

¶53

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶54

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

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

Place: Pune Date: 03.10.2024

¶57

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

¶58

(OA No.809/2022)

¶59

Page 5 of 5

¶60

[ANIL]

Uco Bank v. Dyaneshwar Thombare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Dyaneshwar Thombare

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

Uco Bank versus Kundalik Shinde

Bank of India versus Babasaheb Rakh

Union Bank of India versus Maya Kale

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

Bank of Baroda versus Abusab Gabsavalgi

Bank of Maharashtra versus Dilip Jagtap