Allowed

Uco Bank v. Prithviraj Narutepatil

DRT6 Jul 2024OA/814/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application filed by UCO Bank for recovery of Rs. 40,68,927/- along with future interest from borrowers and guarantors for a term loan and KCC account. Defendants were absent; application allowed with adjusted future interest rate of 9% p.a. and enforcement of mortgage.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly or severally to pay Rs.40,68,927/- with future interest @ 9% p.a. from date of application. Recovery certificate issued. Right to sell mortgaged property granted.

Uco Bank versus Prithviraj Narutepatil — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 27.08.2019 Registered on: 07.05.2022 Decided on: 06.07.2024 Duration: Y M D 04 10 09

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE. (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.814/2022.

¶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. Prithviraj Bapurao Narutepatil

¶8

2. Mr. Mahendra Bapurao Narutepatil

¶9

3 . Mr. Annaso Dattatraya Narute,

¶10

All Residing At and Post Kazad, Taluka – Indapur, District – Pune-413 104.

… Defendants

APPEARANCES

For the Applicant

For the Defendants

Mr. R.B.Ganbote - Advocate Ex parte.

¶16

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.40,68,927/-.

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

(Delivered on 6^th July, 2024)

(OA No.814/2022)

Page 1 of 6

[ANIL]

The Applicant Bank filed present application for recovery of aggregate sum of Rs.40,68,927/- 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 till repayment/realization of entire dues from the defendants.

¶23

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶24

Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 approached and requested the Applicant Bank on 22.12.2014 for a Term Loan of Rs.24,15,000/- for Pipeline. The Applicant Bank favourably considered the request of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs.20,52,750/- for Pipeline to Defendant No.1, on 23.02.2015, on certain terms and conditions. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 stood guarantors for Securing Term Loan Facility to be availed by Defendant No.1 from the Applicant Bank.

¶25

Again, Defendant Nos.1 to 3 approached Applicant Bank on 11.05.2015 and requested for Two Term Loans i.e. Rs.5,80,000/- for Tractor and Rs.4,20,000/- for Blower and a KCC of Rs.10,00,000/- to defendant No.1. Again Defendant Nos.2 and 3 stood guarantors for securing two Term Loans and KCC to be availed by Defendant No.1 from the Applicant Bank.

(OA No.814/2022)

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 executed Simple Mortgage Deed to secure all the Term Loan facilities on 02.03.2015 and 14.09.2015 respectively and mortgaged the below mentioned property in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶30

All that piece and parcel of Gat No.201, admeasuring 01 Hector 33 Are, Gat No.211 admeasuring 00 Hector 73 Are, Gat No.367 admeasuring 00 Hector 06 Are, Gat No.372 admeasuring 00 Hector 34 Are, Gat No.373 admeasuring 00 Hector 15 Are and Gat No.676 admeasuring 01 Hector 89 Are at village Kazad, Taluka Indapur, 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.1 has executed four separate acknowledgments on 02.01.2018 and 31.03.2018 respectively and confirmed the balance in Term Loan Accounts and KCC Account, with the Applicant Bank.

¶32

It is contended that the defendants have not paid the installments in the Term Loan Accounts and KCC Account on time and they have committed breach of the sanction

(OA No.814/2022)

Page 3 of 6

[ANIL]

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 05.08.2019 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 25.04.2024 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-24 which corroborate the case of the Applicant Bank.

¶41

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

(OA No.814/2022)

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

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.814/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶50

(B) Defendant Nos.1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay to the Applicant Bank towards all Term Loans sum of Rs.37,68,810/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Ten only) and towards KCC Account of Rs.3,00,117/(Rupees Three Lakhs One Hundred Seventeen Only) total sum of Rs.40,68,927/- (Rupees Fourty Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Seven only) with future interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e.27.08.2019 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.814/2022)

Page 5 of 6

[ANIL]

All that piece and parcel of Gat No.201 admeasuring 01 Hector 33 Are, Gat No.211 admeasuring 00 Hector 73 Are, Gat No.367 admeasuring 00 Hector 06 Are, Gat No.372 admeasuring 00 Hector 34 Are, Gat No.373 admeasuring 00 Hector 15 Are & Gat No.676 admeasuring 01 Hector 89 Are at village Kazad, Taluka Indapur, within the limits of Kazad Grampanchayat 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.

¶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

Place: Pune Date: 06.07.2024

¶60

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

¶61

(OA No.814/2022)

¶62

Page 6 of 6

¶63

[ANIL]

Uco Bank v. Prithviraj Narutepatil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Prithviraj Narutepatil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

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)

Bank of Maharashtra versus Dattatray Kate

Uco Bank versus Sadhu Bansode

Bank of Maharashtra versus Tanveer Tole