Allowed

Bank of India v. Shukracharya Mulik

DRT5 Jan 2024OA/851/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by Bank of India for recovery of Rs.10.64 Lakh plus future interest. The Court found no reason to disbelieve the bank's evidence as defendants were present ex parte and awarded relief at a reduced interest rate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants shall pay Rs.10,64,439/- with future interest @9% p.a. from 19.03.2019. Applicant entitled to sell mortgaged properties and issue Recovery Certificate.

Bank of India versus Shukracharya Mulik — Specific Performance | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 19.03.2019 Registered on: 07.10.2022 Decided on: 05.01.2024 Duration: Y M D 4 9 21

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.851/2022

¶3

Bank of India

¶4

A Body Corporate constituted under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Head Office at – STAR HOUSE, C-5, “G” Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 and one of its Branch identified as Shalgaon, having address at: Shalgaon, Taluka – Kadegaon, District-Sangli 415 304.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Shukracharya Waghu Mulik Age – Adult, Occ: Agriculturist Residing at: A/p. Shalgaon, Taluka – Kadegaon, District – Sangli, Maharashtra 415 304.

¶8

Mr. Tanaji Shankar Mulik Age – Adult, Occ: Agriculturist Residing at: A/p. Shalgaon, Taluka – Kadegaon, District – Sangli, Maharashtra 415 304.

(OA No.851/2022)

Page 1 of 7

[KAUR]

Sampatrao Deshmukh Sahakari Pani Puravtha Sanstha Maryadit Having its Registered Office at – Raigaon, Taluka – Kadegaon, District – Sangli, Maharashtra 415 304.

¶13

Cane Agro Energy (India) Ltd., A Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered office at – Raigaon, Post – Hingangaon (BK), Taluka – Kadegaon, District – Sangli 415 304. …Defendants

¶14

APPEARANCES

¶15

For the Applicant Mr. Parikshit P Parab - Advocate For Defendants Ex parte

¶16

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.10,64,439.35Ps

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

(Delivered on 5^th January, 2024)

¶19

The Applicant bank has filed the present application for recovery of Rs.10,64,439.35Ps together with future interest @12.45% per annum with half yearly rests from 19^th March, 2019 till repayment/realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶20

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶21

Defendant No.1 is the principal borrower. Defendant Nos.2

¶22

and 3 are the guarantors to the loan facility availed by defendant No.1. Defendant No.4 is a Limited Company

(OA No.851/2022)

Page 2 of 7

[KAUR]

engaged in the business of manufacturing of sugar.

¶27

Further, with a view of increase sugarcane yield in the village of Raigaon and Shalgaon, the defendant no.4 proposed to implement drip irrigation system with the help of defendant no.3 Society. In order to implement drip irrigation system huge investment was required and therefore, defendant Nos.3 & 4 had conjoined with 324 farmers within the village Raigaon & Shalgaon for raising finance. Thereafter, at the instruction of defendant No.4, defendant No.3 applied to applicant Bank for grant of an aggregate Credit limit of Rs.50 Crores. Initially the applicant Bank sanctioned an aggregate credit facility of Rs.32,56,14,900/- in principle. As per the terms of sanction in principle, the said amount of Rs.32,56,14,900/- was reserved for disbursement to individual beneficiary farmers upon each of them individually. Thereafter, defendant No.3 executed Common Guarantee Agreement and mortgaged the properties in favour of applicant Bank as set out in Paragraph No. 5(k) of the Original Application. Defendant No.4 also executed an Undertaking dated 10^th March, 2013 in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶28

Further, pursuant to sanctioning an amount of Rs.32,56,14,900/by applicant Bank in principle for implementation of drip irrigation system for benefit of 324 farmers, defendant No.1

(OA No.851/2022)

Page 3 of 7

[KAUR]

being beneficiary applied for an aggregate Credit Limit of Rs.7,01,000/- which includes Credit Limits – Kisan Cash Credit Facility of Rs.1,71,000./-, Term Loan-I for Drip Irrigation of Rs.4,80,000/- and Term Loan-II (Kisan Tatkal Loan) of Rs.50,000/-. The applicant Bank considered the said request and upon guarantee of defendant No.2 and Common Guarantee of defendant No.3 on 25^th March, 2013 sanctioned and disbursed an amount of Rs.7,01,000/- to defendant No.1. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶33

Further, since the Drip Irrigation Project was not completed, the defendant No.1 ignored and avoided to repay the loan and failed to adhere the repayment schedule. Hence, the account was declared as NPA. Thereafter, the applicant Bank on 4^th March, 2019 issued Legal Notice to defendants and called upon to repay the outstanding loan amount together with future interest. Despite service of Notice, defendants failed and neglected to comply with the demand in the said Notice.

¶34

Hence, this application is filed.

¶35

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons Hence, the application proceeded ex parte against them vide Order dated 15^th December, 2023 passed below Application (Exhibit1).

(OA No.851/2022)

Page 4 of 7

[KAUR]

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Avinash Dnyandeo Bhise, Branch Manager which supports the case of the applicant elucidated in the application.

¶40

In the Claim Affidavit the applicant Bank has submitted that Exhibit AW-1/1 to AW-1/5 are common documents which have been filed in one Original Application No.554/2019 and has produced Xerox copies of the same. Hence, the same are read as secondary evidence.

¶41

The applicant Bank has also produced and original loan and security documents at Sr.Nos.AW-1/6 to AW-1/19 which corroborate the case of the applicant Bank.

¶42

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

¶43

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.

¶44

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @12.45%per annum with half yearly rests. However, considering the facts of the present 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.

(OA No.851/2022)

Page 5 of 7

[KAUR]

Hence, I pass the following order:-

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(A) Original Application No.851/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶51

(B) Defendant Nos.1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.10,64,439/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Sixty-Four Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty-Nine only) with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 19^th March, 2019 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶52

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by valid and subsisting mortgage of the immovable properties i.e. (a) All that piece and parcel of Land bearing S.No.1346/1, admeasuring 00H 36R of Village Hingango (BK), Taluka Kadegaon, District Sangli, along with building and other structure and machinery, fixtures thereon and (b) All that piece and parcel of Land bearing S.No.59, admeasuring 01H 85R of Village Shalgaon (BK), Taluka Kadegaon, District Sangli, along with building and

(OA No.851/2022)

Page 6 of 7

[KAUR]

other structure and machinery, fixtures thereon.

¶57

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

¶58

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶59

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

¶60

Sd/(Dilip G. Murumkar) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date: 05.01.2024 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune

¶61

(OA No.851/2022)

¶62

Page 7 of 7

¶63

[KAUR]

Bank of India v. Shukracharya Mulik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Shukracharya Mulik

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Central Bank of India versus Gorakh

Uco Bank versus Ravindra Thombare

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/s. v. N. Pethe Brothers

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Deepak Balu Jadhav, Prop. M/S D.H. Communication

Union Bank of India versus Sharmila Patil

Bank of India versus M/S Shree Motors Prop. Prakash Sakharam Sawant