Allowed

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) v. Dinlaxmi Oil Mill Prop Shri. Vikas Dinkar Power

DRT24 Apr 2024OA/87/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues. The tribunal directed the defendants to pay principal amounts along with future interest at 9% per annum, secured by a mortgage on immovable property, and issued a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay specified sums with future interest @9% per annum; Recovery Certificate issued; mortgaged property sale permitted for recovery.

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus Dinlaxmi… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on : 31.08.2018 Registered on : 07.02.2022 Decided on : 24.04.2024 Duration : Y M D 05 07 24

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 87/2022.

¶3

Union Bank of India, Erstwhile Corporation Bank, A bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980, having its head office at Mangalore, Karnataka State and Branch at 1426/28, C-Ward, Laxmi Towers, Konda Lane, Laxmipuri, Kolhapur 416 002.

¶4

.. Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1 Shri Vikas Dinkar Powar, Proprietor of Dinlaxmi Oil Mill, Adult, Occ. : Business, R/o : 1382, E-Ward, Rajarampuri, 13^th Lane, Baichya Putala Javal, Shahu Nagar, Kolhapur 416 002.

¶7

2 Shri Vinayak Vilas Chougale, Adult, Occ. : Business, R/o : At and Post Shingnapur, Taluka Karveer, District Kolhapur 416 002.

¶8

3 Shri Anil Dinkar Sangaonkar, Adult, Occ. : Business,

(OA No. 87/2022)

Page 1 of 6

Sanap

R/o : 1416, Shahu Nagar, E-Ward, .. Defendants Rajarampuri, Kolhapur 416 002.

¶13

APPEARANCES

¶14

For Applicant Advocate R.B. Ganbote. For Defendants Advocate Bora.

¶15

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.22,13,075/-

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

(Delivered on 24^th April, 2024)

¶18

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.22,13,075/- together with future interest @13.40 and 11.95% per annum 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 Proprietor of Dinlaxmi Oil Mill. As per the loan application dated 15.11.2014 of defendant No.1, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Cash Credit facility of Rs.9,50,000/- to defendant No.1 vide Sanction Letter dated 20.11.2014. Defendant No.2 stood guarantor for the repayment of loan sanctioned to defendant No.1.

¶21

Thereafter, again as per the loan application dated 12.05.2016 of defendant No.1, the applicant Bank sanctioned the

(OA No. 87/2022)

Page 2 of 6

Sanap

Overdraft facility of Rs.14,00,000/- to defendant No.1 vide Sanction Letter dated 30.05.2016. Defendant No.3 stood guarantor for the repayment of loan sanctioned to defendant No.1.

¶26

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank along with deed of mortgage of Plot No.33 in R.S. No. 332/A bearng Grampanchayat Mikat No. 1068/1233 at village Kaneriwadi, Taluka Karveer, District Kolhapur, in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶27

Thereafter, defendant No.1 has also executed Demand Promissory Note on 20.11.2017 in favour of the applicant Bank and thereby confirmed the balance in Cash Credit account. 3. The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Therefore, on 02.11.2017, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendants. Despite service of Notice, 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. 87/2022)

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 Thandayam Brahmachary, Chief Manager and Principal Officer of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW1 to AW-24 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 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 future interest @ 13.40% per annum for Cash Credit facility and @11.95% per annum for Overdraft facility. However, considering the facts of the case, I

(OA No. 87/2022)

Page 4 of 6

Sanap

am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest. Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(A) Original Application No. 87/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶45

(B) Defendant Nos.1 and 2 to either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.7,77,083/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Eighty Three only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 31.08.2018 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶46

(C) Defendant Nos.1 and 3 to either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.14,35,992/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Two only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 31.08.2018 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in

(OA No. 87/2022)

Page 5 of 6

Sanap

this operative order.

¶51

(D) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage of immovable property i.e. Plot No.33 in R.S. No. 332/A bearing Grampanchayat Mikat No. 1068/1233 at village Kaneriwadi, Taluka Karveer, District Kolhapur, more particularly described in the Para No. 5.14 of the Original Application.

¶52

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

¶53

(F) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶54

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

¶55

Place : Pune Date : 24.04.2024

¶56

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

¶57

(OA No. 87/2022)

¶58

Page 6 of 6

¶59

Sanap

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) v. Dinlaxmi Oil Mill Prop Shri. Vikas Dinkar Power

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) v. Dinlaxmi Oil Mill Prop Shri. Vikas Dinkar Power

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

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus M/S Piyush Poly Print Prop Smt. Pushpawati Harichand Nahar (Deceased)

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Dattatray Kamathe

Raju Danial versus The Recovery Officer- 2, Drt Pune and others

M/s Aceagro Biosciences Ltd. versus State Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sai Fabrication, Prop. Shri Sagar Shivaji Solunke

Idbi Bank versus Sadhana Jadhav