Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Shourya Auto Pressing, Prop. Mrs. Saroj Rajesh Panghal

DRT18 Nov 2024OA/897/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal at Pune allowed an original application filed by Bank of Baroda for a recovery certificate against the proprietress of M/s Shourya Auto Pressing. The court reduced the claimed amount due to costs and adjusted interest rates before granting relief.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued; Defendants to pay Rs.14,59,540 with future interest at 9% per annum from 27.11.2018.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Shourya Auto Pressing, Prop. Mrs… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 27.11.2018 Registered on: 05.09.2022 Decided on: 18.11.2024 Duration: Y M D 05 11 21

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.897/2022.

¶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, having its Regional Office at 2^nd Floor, Sharda Centre, 11/1, Khilare Path, Erandawane, Pune-4 and Branch office at Pride Purple Square, Survey No.210, Kalewadi Chowk, Wakad, Pune-57.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. M/s Shourya Auto Pressing Proprietor – Mrs. Saroj Rajesh Panghal Office – Gat No.693/694, H.No.1366, Behind Maharashtra Vajan Kata, Kudalwadi, Chikhali, Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corpn., Pune-412 214.

¶8

Mrs. Saroj Rajesh Panghal Age Adult, Occu.:- Business, R/at – 3/1, Green Fields Society, Udayamnagar, Nehrunagar, Pimpri, Pune – 411 018.

… Defendants

(OA No.897/2022)

Page 1 of 5

[ANIL]

APPEARANCES For the Applicant For Defendants

¶14

Mr. M. D. Kulkarni Ex parte.

¶15

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs.14,74,540/-.

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

(Delivered on 18^th November, 2024)

¶18

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery certificate of Rs.14,74,540/- with further interest thereof from 21.11.2018 @16.90% plus penal interest @3% thereon as claimed in particulars of claim.

¶19

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶20

Defendant No.2 is Sole Proprietor of Defendant No.1 – M/s Shourya Auto Pressing carrying out business of manufacturing of Auto Components and Pressing for Auto Industries. Defendant No.2 approached the Applicant Bank on 02.12.2015 and requested for Temporary Over Draft Loan of Rs.10,50,000/- for a limited period of three days for purchase of raw material for stock and also to make payment to her clients. The Applicant Bank considered the said request and sanctioned Temporary Over Draft Loan of Rs.10,50,000/- for three days to the Defendant No.1.

(OA No.897/2022)

Page 2 of 5

[ANIL]

Defendant No.2 signed & executed LDOC 3(b) Demand Promissory Note & other necessary documents for SoleProprietorship firm for Temporary Over Draft Loan of Rs.10,50,000/- dt. 03.12.2015. Defendant No.2 agreed to repay the said Temporary Over Draft Loan amount alongwith interest within three days, however, failed to repay the same.

¶25

It is contended by the Applicant Bank that Applicant Bank sent letters dated 22.12.2015 and 05.05.2016 to Defendant No.2 to close the said Temporary Over Draft Loan by 10.05.2016. However, defendant No.2 failed to act upon her own undertaking. By the aforesaid letters dated 22.12.2015 & 05.05.2016. Defendant No.2 has acknowledged her indebtedness and confirmed that the amount due was secured in full force and effect. Thus, on 16.03.2016, the Over Draft Loan account of Defendants became NPA.

¶26

Thereafter, on 31.12.2016, the applicant’s advocate Shri. M. D. Kulkarni issued legal notice calling upon to defendants the loan amount of pay outstanding Rs.10,00,000/- against the said Temporary Over Draft Loan. But, the defendants refused to accept the Legal Notice and, therefore, it was returned unserved to the Applicant Bank with postal remarks on 03.01.2017 and 04.01.2017.

(OA No.897/2022)

Page 3 of 5

[ANIL]

Hence, this application is filed.

¶31

Defendants have failed to appear in the proceeding. Hence, the application proceeded ex parte against them vide Order dated 26.04.2024 passed below the Application (Exhibit-01).

¶32

The Applicant Bank filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Pravinkumar Bhimrao Hingole, Senior Manager, which supports the case of the applicant elucidated in the application.

¶33

The Applicant Bank has produced in evidence the loan documents at Exhibits AW-1 to AW-13, which corroborate 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 the evidence of the Applicant Bank. Therefore, the Applicant Bank is entitled for the reliefs as claimed.

¶36

The Applicant Bank has claimed expenses and costs of Typing, Notice and Xerox of Rs.15,000/-, which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.14,74,540/- is reduced to Rs.14,59,540 /-.

(OA No.897/2022)

Page 4 of 5

[ANIL]

10 The Applicant Bank in the pleading has claimed interest @16.90% and penal interest @3%. Considering the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that if interest is granted @9% per annum (simple) for all the loan facilities, it would be just and reasonable.

¶41

11 Hence, I pass the following order: -

¶42

ORDER

¶43

(A) Original Application No.897/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶44

(B) Defendant Nos.1&2 either jointly or severally shall pay to the Applicant Bank sum of Rs.14,59,540 /- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Fourty only) with future interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e.27.11.2018 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶45

¶46

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

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

Place: Pune Date: 18.11.2024

¶49

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

¶50

(OA No.897/2022)

¶51

Page 5 of 5

¶52

[ANIL]

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Shourya Auto Pressing, Prop. Mrs. Saroj Rajesh Panghal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Shourya Auto Pressing, Prop. Mrs. Saroj Rajesh Panghal

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Deepak Arun Bhosale

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sneha Enterprise

Punjab National Bank versus Chandrakant Ghadge

Bank of India versus Shahaji Ghodake

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Shahaji Chavare

Bank of India versus M/S Shri Bhagwati Traders Prop Mr. Kishor Kantilal Parmar