Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Quality Cement Veet Products and Suppliers Prop. Mr. Netaji Ramchandra Yadav

DRT2 Apr 2024OA/895/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Bank of Baroda for recovery of dues totaling Rs. 31,76,287 along with future interest from an ex parte defendant.

What did the court decide?

Defendant to pay Rs. 31,76,287 with future interest @9% p.a. simple from 07/11/2019; issue Recovery Certificate; dismissed claim for hypothecated assets due to lack of detail.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Quality Cement Veet Products and… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 07.11.2019 Registered on: 24.08.2022 Decided on: 02.04.2024 Duration: Y M D 4 4 26

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.895/2022

¶3

Bank of Baroda

¶4

A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Head Office at Baroda House, Mandavi, Baroda – 390 006, Gujarat and one of its branch at: Bank of Baroda, 39, Vakharbag, Opp. Sangli High School, Sangli 416 416.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s. Quality Cement Veet Products and Suppliers through its Proprietor Mr. Netaji Ramchandra Yadav Kadepur, Tal. Kadegaon, Dist. Sangli.

…Defendant

APPEARANCES

For the Applicant

For the Applicant Ms. Pooja Mali i/b M.V. Kini & Co. - Advocate For Defendant Ex parte

(OA No.895/2022)

Page 1 of 5

[KAUR]

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.31,76,287/-

¶16

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 2^nd April, 2024)

¶17

The applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of Rs.31,76,287/- together with future interest thereon @12.50% per annum compounded at monthly rests from 7^th November, 2019 till repayment/realization of the entire dues from the defendant.

¶18

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶19

The defendant Company through its Proprietor Mr. Netaji Ramchandra Yadav approached the applicant Bank seeking financial assistance in the form of Cash Credit facility for construction of factory building and purchase of plant and machinery. After due consideration the applicant Bank on 7^th February, 2014 sanctioned and disbursed the Cash Credit facility of Rs.40 Lakh to the defendant under CGTSME scheme.

¶20

The defendant executed necessary loan transaction and security documents and also executed Hypothecation Agreement in favour of the applicant Bank as set out in Paragraph No.5.6 of the Original Application.

¶21

It is contended by the applicant Bank that on 23^rd November,

(OA No.895/2022)

Page 2 of 5

[KAUR]

2016 defendant acknowledged the liability by executing Letter of Acknowledgment of Debt.

¶26

Initially, the defendant made partial repayments but failed to repay the loan amount as per terms of sanction. Hence, the account of defendant was classified as NPA on 30^th June, 2018.

¶27

Thereafter, on 30^th October, 2019 the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendant and called upon him to pay the outstanding amount together with interest, costs, charges, expenses etc. Despite service of Notice, defendant failed and neglected to comply with the demand in the said Notice.

¶28

Hence, this application is filed.

¶29

Defendant failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex parte against him vide Order dated 25^th January, 2024 passed below the Application (Exhibit-01).

¶30

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Bhrigu Talwar, Chief Manager which supports the case of the applicant elucidated in the application.

¶31

The applicant Bank has produced on record the original loan

(OA No.895/2022)

Page 3 of 5

[KAUR]

transaction and security documents at Sr.Nos.AW-1/1 to AW-1/20 which corroborate the case of the applicant Bank.

¶36

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

¶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 @12.50% per annum compounded at monthly 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.

¶39

Hence, I pass the following order:-

¶40

ORDER

¶41

(A) Original Application No.895/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶42

(B) Defendant shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.31,76,287/- (Rupees Thirty-One Lakh SeventySix Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty-Seven only) with future interest @9% per annum from the

(OA No.895/2022)

Page 4 of 5

[KAUR]

date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 7^th November, 2019 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶47

¶48

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

¶49

Place : Pune Date: 02.04.2024

¶50

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

¶51

(OA No.895/2022)

¶52

Page 5 of 5

¶53

[KAUR]

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Quality Cement Veet Products and Suppliers Prop. Mr. Netaji Ramchandra Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Quality Cement Veet Products and Suppliers Prop. Mr. Netaji Ramchandra Yadav

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

Union Bank of India versus Shashikant Barge

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sunanda Meshram

Yes Bank versus Kiran Maruti Ghule

Bank of Maharashtra versus Shashidhar Chavan

Federal Bank versus Sangita Hakke

Union Bank of India versus Vijay Tendolkar