Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Snehalata More

DRT25 Jan 2024OA/84/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant bank sought recovery of loan dues totaling Rs.45,43,486/- plus interest. The defendants failed to contest. The tribunal allowed the application, reduced the claim amount, and awarded recovery of principal along with future interest at 9% per annum via a Recovery Certificate and mortgage rights.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.45,24,850/- plus future interest at 9% per annum; issuance of Recovery Certificate; right to sell mortgaged property.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Snehalata More — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on : 26.11.2018 Registered on : 07.02.2022 Decided on : 25.01.2024 Duration : Y M D 05 02 00

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 84/2022.

¶3

Bank of Maharashtra, A Body Corporate established under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its registered office at “Lokmangal”, 1501, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411005 and one of its branch office at – Lasurne, Taluka Indapur, District Pune.

¶4

.. Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1 Sou. Snehalata Kisan More, Adult, Occ. : Agriculture, R/o : At and Post Nimsakhar, Taluka Indapur, District Pune.

¶7

2 Sou. Sangita Hanumant Phadtare, Adult, Occ. : Agriculture, R/o : At and Post Nimsakhar, Taluka Indapur, District Pune.

¶8

3 Shri Hanumant Sahebrao Phadtare, Adult, Occ. : Agriculture, R/o : At and Post Nimsakhar, Taluka Indapur, District Pune.

.. Defendants

(OA No. 84/2022)

Page 1 of 6

Sanap

APPEARANCES

For Applicant Advocate R.B. Ganbote. For Defendants Without written statement.

¶15

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.45,43,486/-

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

(Delivered on 25^th January, 2024)

¶18

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.45,43,486/- together with future interest @14.70% per annum for Term Loan Account and @9% per annum for Crop Loan from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶19

Brief facts of the application are as under :

¶20

Defendant No.1 is the borrower and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the guarantors. As per the loan application of defendant No.1, the applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed the Term Loan facility of Rs.29,00,000/- to defendant No.1 for construction of shed net as per Sanction Letter dated 26.11.2015. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 stood guarantors for the said Term Loan facility availed by defendant No.1. In order to secure the aforesaid Term Loan, the defendants executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank along with deed of mortgage of Gat No. 83/2 admeasuring 1H 74R

(OA No. 84/2022)

Page 2 of 6

Sanap

situated at village Nimsakhar, Taluka Indapur, District Pune in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶25

Thereafter, again in or about February 2016, defendant Nos.1 to 3 approached to applicant Bank requesting Crop Loan of Rs.4,54,000/- for defendant No.1. Accordingly, the applicant Bank sanction and disbursed Crop Loan of Rs.4,54,000/- to defendant No.1 on 23.03.2016. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 offered themselves as guarantors for the said loan availed by defendant No.1 and the defendants have executed loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶26

On 28.08.2018, defendant No.1 also executed Balance and Security Confirmation Letter in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶27

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Despite demand of payment from the defendants by personal visits and telephonic calls and reminders, the defendants failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank.

¶28

Hence, this application is filed.

¶29

The defendants failed to file written statement. Hence, the

(OA No. 84/2022)

Page 3 of 6

Sanap

application proceeded without written statement of the defendants as per Order dated 19.01.2023 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶34

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of P.V. Gurunathan, Chief Manager and the Principal Officer of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1 to AW-16 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶35

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

¶36

Since the defendants failed to file written statement 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.

¶37

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.

¶38

The applicant Bank has claimed Accrued interest up to 14.11.2018 twice i.e. of Rs.18,636/- for the Term Loan, which

(OA No. 84/2022)

Page 4 of 6

Sanap

cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.45,43,486/- is reduced to Rs.45,24,850/-.

¶43

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @ 14.70% per annum for Term Loan Account and @9% per annum for Crop Loan. 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.84/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶47

(B) Defendants Nos.1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.45,24,850/(Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 26.11.2018 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

(OA No. 84/2022)

Page 5 of 6

Sanap

valid and subsisting mortgage of Gat No. 83/2 admeasuring 1H 74R situated at village Nimsakhar, Taluka Indapur, District Pune, more particularly described in Para No. 5.7 of the Original Application.

¶53

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

¶54

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶55

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

¶56

Sd/(Dilip G Murumkar) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 25.01.2024 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶57

(OA No. 84/2022)

¶58

Page 6 of 6

¶59

Sanap

Bank of Maharashtra v. Snehalata More

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Snehalata More

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

Punjab National Bank versus Anil Atmaram Haware

Uco Bank versus Dasa Shiva Narute

Bank of Maharashtra versus Makrand

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S Maks Technologies

Punjab National Bank versus M/S B. D. Mistry Prop Late Shri. Beheraram D Sharma

Bank of Maharashtra versus Rajyog Metals Prop Yogita Rajendra Shinde