Allowed

Bank of India v. Babasaheb Rakh

DRT1 Oct 2024OA/88/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Bank of India's application ex-parte against three defendants including a principal borrower and two guarantors regarding a default of Rs.13,46,401. The court directed the defendants to pay the principal amount plus future interest at a reduced rate of 9% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed: Defendants to pay sum of Rs.13,46,401 with future interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing along with issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Bank of India versus Babasaheb Rakh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 30.08.2018 Registered on: 21.01.2023 Decided on: 01.10.2024 Duration: Y M D 06 01 01

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 88/2023.

¶3

Bank of India,

¶4

A Bank Constituted under 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 – 400051 and Branch office at Kurul, Taluka Mohol, District Solapur 413213.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Babasaheb Vithal Rakh, Age Adult, Occ. Agriculture, R/o : At Post Sawargaon, Taluka Patoda, District Beed – 413 207.

¶8

M/s. Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Takli Sikandar, Registered Office at Takli Sikandar, Tal. Mohol, District Solapur – 413248.

¶9

Mr. Pappu Vitthal Rakh, Age Adult, Occ. Agriculture,

(OA No. 88/2023)

Page 1 of 5

Sanap

R/o : At Post Sawargaon, Taluka … Defendants Patoda, District Beed – 413 207.

¶14

APPEARANCES

¶15

For the Applicant Advocate Satyen Jagtap. For the Defendants Ex parte.

¶16

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.13,46,401/-

¶17

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 01^st October, 2024)

¶18

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of sum of Rs.13,46,401/- together with future interest thereon @12.55% 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 Principal Borrower and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are guarantors. Defendant No. 2 is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Sugar and avail services of Harvesting and Transport contractors owning trucks/tractors/bullock carts in every crushing season.

¶21

Karmaveer Kai. Bhimrao Mahadik Sarva Seva Sangha which is a Sangh of contractors, requested defendant No. 2 to give the contract of transportation of

(OA No. 88/2023)

Page 2 of 5

Sanap

sugarcane to its members for crushing season 2015-16. As per request of said Sangh, defendant No. 2 resolved in its meeting for furnishing guarantee for the repayment of the loan advanced/to be advanced to the contractors. Accordingly, defendant No. 2 made an application to the applicant Bank requesting to grant loan of Rs.33.92 Crore for crushing season 2015-16 to Kai. Bhimrao Mahadik Sarva Seva Sangh. The applicant Bank sanctioned aggregate / cumulative clean demand loan limit of Rs.24.96 Crore for the harvesting and transportation units to be employed by defendant No.2 vide Sanction Letter dated 02.09.2015.

¶26

At the instance of defendant No. 2, defendant No.1 submitted loan application dated 01.09.2015 and after due consideration request of defendant No.1, the applicant Bank sanctioned H & T Finance/ Demand loan of Rs.9,60,000/- to defendant No.1. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 stood guarantors for repayment of said loan availed by defendant No. 1. The defendants have executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶27

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to

(OA No. 88/2023)

Page 3 of 5

Sanap

regularize the accounts. Therefore, on 14.05.2018, 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. Hence, this application is filed.

¶32

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 06.06.2024 passed below Application Exhibit-1.

¶33

The applicant has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit 6) of Ashok Kanagi, Officer of the applicant Bank and has also produced on record the original loan documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1 to AW-19 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶34

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

¶35

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.

¶36

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @12.55% per annum. However, considering the facts of the present case, I

(OA No. 88/2023)

Page 4 of 5

Sanap

am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple) it would be just and reasonable.

¶41

Hence, I pass the following order: -

¶42

ORDER

¶43

(A) Original Application No. 88/2023 is allowed with costs.

¶44

(B) Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.13,46,401/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Four Hundred One only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 30.08.2018 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶45

(C) Issue Recovery Certificate. (D) The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant Bank and defendants.

¶46

Sd/( Dilip G. Murumkar ) Place : Pune Presiding Officer, Date : 01.10.2024 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶47

(OA No. 88/2023)

¶48

Page 5 of 5

¶49

Sanap

Bank of India v. Babasaheb Rakh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Babasaheb Rakh

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

Union Bank of India versus Maya Kale

Bank of Baroda versus Sunita Dhaigude

The South Indian Bank Ltd. versus Mrs. Rajkumari Ashok Jhosi, Prop. M/S. Raj Enterprises

Uco Bank versus Kundalik Shinde

Uco Bank versus Dyaneshwar Thombare

Hdfc Bank versus Prakash Shrimant Gouraj, Prop. M/S. Prakash Shrimant Gouraj