Allowed

Bank of India v. Mahesh Choughule

DRT3 Sept 2024OA/95/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of the outstanding dues from the defendant who had failed to repay the vehicle term loan. The court granted the principal amount with future interest at 9% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Ordered defendant to pay Rs.26,40,132/- with future interest @9% p.a. simple from filing date and issued Recovery Certificate.

Bank of India versus Mahesh Choughule — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 26.06.2021 Registered on: 09.02.2022 Decided on: 03.09.2024 Duration: Y M D 03 02 07

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.95/2022.

¶3

Bank of India ,

¶4

A Bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisitions & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its Head Office at Star House, C-5, “G”Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 500 051 and a Branch Office amongst other places known as Jaigad Branch, Killa Road, District Ratnagiri- 415 614.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Mahesh Tukaram Choughule Age Adult, Occ.- Business, R/at Chaferi, Post Jaigad, Taluka & District – Ratnagiri-415 614.

¶8

…Defendant

¶9

APPEARANCES

¶10

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

¶11

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.26,40,132.01 Ps.

(OA No.95/2022)

Page 1 of 5

[ANIL]

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 3^rd September, 2024)

¶16

Applicant Bank has filed present application for recovery of Rs.26,40,132.01Ps. as on 05.03.2021 inclusive of interest plus interest thereon @10.80% per annum with monthly rests with effect from 06.03.2021 till repayment/realization of the entire dues/debts from the defendant, for the Vehicle Term Loan facility.

¶17

¶18

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶19

Applicant Bank states that the Defendant approached to the Applicant Bank on 25.08.2012 for Vehicle Loan of Rs.23,00,000/-, for purchase of New Truck. The Applicant Bank considered the request of the defendant and sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs.23,00,000/- on 25.08.2012.

¶20

In order to secure the aforesaid Term Loan Facilities, the defendant has executed loan and security documents as set out in Para No.5.4 of the Original Application in favor of the Applicant Bank.

¶21

In addition to this, defendant has hypothecated the vehicle Mahindra Navistar bearing Registration No.MH-08H-2451 and executed hypothecation cum Loan Agreement dt.27.08.2012 for securing the repayment under the Vehicle Loan Facilities of Rs.23,00,000/-.

(OA No.95/2022)

Page 2 of 5

[ANIL]

Defendant has executed acknowledgment of Debt/ Securities Letters dated 28.11.2014, 30.12.2016, and 09.12.2019 and admitted an outstanding in the Vehicle Term Loan Account for Rs.20,52,798/- and Rs.17,62,315.75Ps, and Rs.18,01,759.17Ps., respectively.

¶26

The defendant has failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues in spite of several requests. Applicant repeatedly called upon the defendant to regularize the account, but he failed and neglected to comply with the same. Thus, the Loan Account of the defendant became NPA on 30.09.2015. Thereafter, the Applicant Bank sent a Legal Notice on 24.12.2018, through its Advocate to the defendant. Despite Service of notice, the defendant failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the Applicant Bank.

¶27

Hence, this application is filed.

¶28

The defendant failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per order dated 04.06.2024 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶29

The Applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Mukund S. Khandekar, Manager, who has produced on record the Original Loan Transaction documents at

(OA No.95/2022)

Page 3 of 5

[ANIL]

Exhs.AW-1 to AW-14, which corroborates the case of the Applicant Bank.

¶34

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

¶35

Since the defendant 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 claimed.

¶36

The Applicant Bank has claimed future interest @10.80% 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.95/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶40

(B) Defendant shall pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.26,40,132/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Fourty Thousand One Hundred Thirty Two only ) with future interest @9% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e.26.06.2021 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

(OA No.95/2022)

Page 4 of 5

[ANIL]

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

¶46

Place : Pune Date: 03.09.2024

¶47

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

¶48

(OA No.95/2022)

¶49

Page 5 of 5

¶50

[ANIL]

Bank of India v. Mahesh Choughule

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Mahesh Choughule

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

Hdfc Bank versus Amol Balasaheb Dhamdhere

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S Amir Chicken Centre

State Bank of India versus M/S. Trimurti Stone Industries Prop. Mr. Rajan Waman Angane

Icici Bank Limited versus Vikas Kotwal

State Bank of India versus Mr. Umang Bharatbhushan Madan

Bank of India versus Sampat Neharkar