Allowed

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

DRT5 Jan 2024OA/856/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by a bank for recovery of Rs. 11.96 lakhs plus interest. The tribunal reduced the claimed future interest rate from 11.40% to 9% per annum and directed the defendant to pay the amount along with a recovery certificate and sale of mortgaged property if necessary.

What did the court decide?

Defendant to pay Rs. 11,96,152/- plus 9% future interest; Bank entitled to sell mortgaged property and issue Recovery Certificate.

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Deepak Balu Jadhav, Prop. M/S… — Specific Performance | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on : 05.03.2018 Registered on : 20.08.2022 Decided on : 05.01.2024 Duration : Y M D 05 10 00

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer)

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 856/2022.

¶4

Union Bank of India, Erstwhile Corporation Bank,

¶5

A Body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980, having its head office at Mangalore and Branch Office at Bhosari, Pune.

¶6

.. Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mr. Deepak Balu Jadhav, Prop. M/s. D.H. Communication, Shop No. 4, Survey No. 680, Landewadi Chowk, Bhosari, Pune 411039.

¶9

.. Defendant

¶10

APPEARANCES

¶11

For Applicant Advocate Parikshit P. Parab. For Defendant Ex parte.

¶12

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.11,96,152/-

¶13

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 05^th January, 2024)

¶14

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for

(OA No.856/2022)

Page 1 of 5

Sanap

recovery of the sum of Rs.11,96,152/- together with future interest @11.40% per annum with monthly rests from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendant.

¶19

Brief facts of the application are as under :

¶20

As per the loan application dated 04.08.2015 of the defendant, the applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed the Cash Credit Limit of Rs.9,80,000/- to the defendant vide Sanction Letter dated 06.08.2015.

¶21

In order to secure the aforesaid Cash Credit facility, the defendant executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank along with deed of mortgage of Flat No. 708, 7^th Floor, B Wing, Tulip Homes, Gat No. 199, 193 of village Medankar Wadi, Chakan, Taluka Khed, District Pune in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶22

Thereafter, again at the request of the defendant dated 29.09.2015, the applicant Bank sanctioned additional loan of Rs.50,000/- to the defendant on 29.09.2015 under New Corp Guarantee Credit Card Scheme. For that, the defendant executed loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank on 29.09.2015.

(OA No.856/2022)

Page 2 of 5

Sanap

The applicant Bank contended that the defendant committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. In spite of follow up, the defendant failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶27

The defendant failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 15.12.2023 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

Since the defendant 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.

¶31

The applicant Bank has claimed relief in respect of hypothecated assets. However, there is no detailed description

(OA No.856/2022)

Page 3 of 5

Sanap

with respect to the hypothecated assets, therefore, the relief in terms of hypothecated assets cannot be granted.

¶36

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @11.40% per annum with monthly rests. 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.

¶37

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(A) Original Application No. 856/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶40

(B) The defendant shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.11,96,152/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand One Hundred Fifty Two only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 05.03.2018 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶41

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage of immovable property i.e. Flat No. 708, 7^th Floor, B Wing, Tulip

(OA No.856/2022)

Page 4 of 5

Sanap

Homes, Gat No. 199, 193 of village Medankar Wadi, Chakan, Taluka Khed, District Pune, more particularly described in the Para No. 3A of the Original Application.

¶46

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

¶47

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶48

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

¶49

Place : Pune Date : 05.01.2024

¶50

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

¶51

(OA No.856/2022)

¶52

Page 5 of 5

¶53

Sanap

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Bank of India versus Shukracharya Mulik

Union Bank of India versus Sharmila Patil

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