Allowed

Uco Bank v. Kamlabai Bansode

DRT7 Aug 2024OA/834/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by UCO Bank to recover loans and interest from borrowers and guarantors appearing ex-parte. The court fixed future interest at 9% per annum and granted a recovery certificate with power to sell mortgaged property to recover dues. The court declined prayer for hypothecated assets due to lack of description.

What did the court decide?

Debt recovery order shared among groups of defendants with 9% future interest; recovery certificate issued with power to sell mortgaged property. Hypothecated asset relief denied.

Uco Bank versus Kamlabai Bansode — Specific Performance | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on : 26.12.2019 Registered on : 22.07.2022 Decided on : 07.08.2024 Duration : Y M D 04 07 11

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 834/2022.

¶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 Smt. Kamlabai Dnyandeo Bansode, Age – Adult, Occ. – Agriculture, R/o – At Shindewadi, Post Kazad, Taluka Indapur, District Pune 413104.

¶8

2 Shri Uddhav Dnyandeo Bansode, Age – Adult, Occ. – Agriculture, R/o – At Shindewadi, Post Kazad, Taluka Indapur, District Pune 413104.

¶9

3 Shri Haridas Shrirang Bansode, Age – Adult, Occ. – Agriculture, R/o – At Shindewadi, Post Kazad, Taluka Indapur, District Pune 413104.

(OA No. 834/2022)

Page 1 of 8

Sanap

4	Shri Dnyandeo S. Bansode,
	Age – Adult, Occ. – Agriculture,
	R/o – At Shindewadi, Post Kazad, Taluka Indapur, District Pune 413104.
5	Shri Narayan Namdeo Bansode,
	Age – Adult, Occ. – Agriculture,
	R/o – At Shindewadi, Post Kazad,
	Taluka Indapur, District Pune 413104.
6	Shri Hanumant Sadhu Bansode,
	Age – Adult, Occ. – Agriculture,
	R/o – At Shindewadi, Post Kazad,
	Taluka Indapur, District Pune 413104.
7	Shri Vitthal Pandurang Mane,
	Age – Adult, Occ. – Agriculture,
	R/o – At Shindewadi, Post Kazad,
	Taluka Indapur, District Pune 413104.	.. Defendants

¶14

APPEARANCES

¶15

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

¶16

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs.40,08,839/-

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

(Delivered on 07^th August, 2024)

¶19

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.40,08,839/- together with future interest respectively @12, 12.70 and 13.20% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

(OA No. 834/2022)

Page 2 of 8

Sanap

Brief facts of the application are as under :

¶24

As per the loan application of defendant Nos.1 and 2, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Term Loan of Rs.1,75,000/- to them vide Sanction Letter dated 21.11.2005. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 stood guarantors for the repayment of loan availed by defendant Nos.1 and 2.

¶25

Further, as per the loan application of defendant No.1, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Term Loan of Rs.6,50,000/to defendant No.1 vide Sanction Letter dated 20.12.2013. Defendant Nos. 5 and 6 stood guarantors for the repayment of loan availed by defendant No.1.

¶26

Further, as per the loan application of defendant No.1, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Term Loan of Rs.6,37,000/for Land Development, Term Loan of Rs.6,37,000/- for Grapes Plantation and Term Loan of Rs.6,80,000/- for pipeline i.e. aggregate of Rs.19,54,000/- to defendant No.1 vide Sanction Letter dated 16.01.2015. Defendant Nos. 6 and 7 stood guarantors for the repayment of loan availed by defendant No.1.

¶27

Further, as per the loan application of defendant Nos.1

(OA No. 834/2022)

Page 3 of 8

Sanap

and 2, the applicant Bank sanctioned the KCC of Rs.5,45,000/to defendant Nos.1 and 2 vide Sanction Letter dated 08.07.2015. Defendant Nos. 6 and 7 stood guarantors for the repayment of loan availed by defendant No.1.

¶32

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants executed necessary loan and security documents along with deed of mortgage of Gat No. 99 (P) admeasuring 01 Hector 03 Aar at village Shindewadi, Taluka Indapur, District Pune, in favour of the applicant Bank. The defendants have also executed Acknowledgements from time to time and thereby confirmed the balance outstanding in the loan accounts.

¶33

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

¶34

Hence, this application is filed.

(OA No. 834/2022)

Page 4 of 8

Sanap

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against the defendants as per Order dated 30.04.2024 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶39

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-35 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

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.

¶43

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest respectively

(OA No. 834/2022)

Page 5 of 8

Sanap

@12, 12.70 and 13.20% 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.

¶48

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(A) Original Application No. 834/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶51

(B) Defendant Nos.1 to 4 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.2,47,498/(Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Eight only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 26.12.2019 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶52

(C) Defendant Nos.1, 5 and 6 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.9,72,614/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Seventy Two Thousand Six Hundred Fourteen only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of

(OA No. 834/2022)

Page 6 of 8

Sanap

filing of the Original Application i.e. 26.12.2019 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶57

(D) Defendant Nos.1, 6 and 7 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.23,09,772/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Two only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 26.12.2019 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶58

(E) Defendant Nos.1, 2, 6 and 7 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.4,78,955/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Five only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 26.12.2019 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶59

(F) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage of Gat No. 99 (P)

(OA No. 834/2022)

Page 7 of 8

Sanap

admeasuring 01 Hector 03 Aar at village Shindewadi, Taluka Indapur, District Pune, more particularly described in the Para Nos. 5.12, 5.19 and 5.26 of the Original Application.

¶64

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

¶65

(H) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶66

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

¶67

Sd/(Dilip G Murumkar) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 07.08.2024 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶68

(OA No. 834/2022)

¶69

Page 8 of 8

¶70

Sanap

Uco Bank v. Kamlabai Bansode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Kamlabai Bansode

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

Bank of Baroda versus Rajesh Panghal

Bank of Baroda versus M/S/ Shubhlakshmi Logistics, Prop. Karan Singh

Federal Bank versus Amarshing Phadnaik

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Zenith Stone Industries

Bank of India versus M/s. Sagtech Corporation Prop mrs. prajakta nitin parkale

Canara Bank versus Shri Shrikant Basveshwar Walekar Prop. Spag Guages and Instrument