Allowed

M S Apurva Marketing through Its Proprietor Shri Dadasaheb Vithalrao Sapike v. Canara Bank

DRT18 Jun 2024SA/200/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In SA No. 200/2023, M S Apurva Marketing challenged Canara Bank's actions in recovery proceedings. The Tribunal noted the bank officer's rude treatment of an elderly borrower, throwing a letter and refusing to honor interest calculation per the mortgage deed despite mediation efforts. Consequently, the Tribunal held that misbehavior and delays should not be reflected in the recovery amount. The bank was directed to accept Rs. 9.50 Lakhs as full payment, release securities, and execute a release deed, closing the account.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is directed to pay Rs. 9,50,000 as full and final payment. The account shall be closed, securities released, and a Release Deed executed. The bank will issue a No Dues certificate.

M S Apurva Marketing through Its Proprietor Shri Dadasaheb… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD (BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

¶2

ORDER SHEET

¶3

	18.06. Sr. No.	2024 17 SA No. 200/2023
Classific ation	No. of Exh.
		SECURITIZATION APPLICATION NO. 200/2023
		M S Apurva Marketing through its prop. Shri Dadasaheb Vithalrao Sapike ..Applicant Versus Canara Bank ..Respondent Mr. S.B. Gorde – Advocate for the applicant. Mr. V.R. Patil – Advocate for the respondent- bank. The matter is taken through Hybrid.
		1. This SA is filed by the Applicant challenging the action of the bank. 2. During the course of proceedings the applicant desired to pay the dues of the Bank with interest @ 15.20% simple. 3. Mediation took place many times and glaring incidents were brought to the notice of Tribunal.
		4. The Branch in-charge of Shirdi appeared through VC and she submitted that borrower has to pay the interest @19.5% as reflected in computers despite all efforts of Bank Advocate & Liaison Officer, she was adamant not to calculate interest as per mortgage deed. 5. The borrower had horrific experience at branch not once but many time and even when he went to branch on

¶4

[SBJ] (SA No.200/2023) Page 1 of 4

¶5

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD

¶6

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

¶7

ORDER SHEET

¶8

instruction of Tribunal. The lady at helm of affairs behaved rudely, threw the letter and told the gentleman which may be her father’s age to get out of branch.

¶9

The attitude and aptitude of officer was brought to notice of higher authorities by Liaison Officer but of no use.

¶10

During the course of mediation figure of Rs.8,49,000/was quoted as acceptable amount but subsequently change of heart.

¶11

Rs.10 Lacs were deposited as per orders of DRT out of which bank adjusted Rs.5 Lac in book liability and kept another Rs. 5 Lac in no lien account.

¶12

The behaviour, attitude and aptitude of bank officers for last 4 years do not call for any indulgence to the Bank. Had they accepted the amount or had they properly handled the borrower looking into his age the account would not have gone to stage of possession. Bad handling at branch and RO has led to this liability which bank pegs at Rs.14,78,282.20 and the account which would have been closed four years back is litigated at the cost of borrower who is willing to pay but bank is showing him the door for reason best known to them. The cry of NPA by banks should stop at doorstep of such officers.

¶13

10.The adjustment of Rs.5 Lac is given after calculating interest though it is stated that the amount was adjusted in book liability. Another Rs.5 Lacs are shown adjusted

¶14

[SBJ] (SA No.200/2023) Page 2 of 4

¶15

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD

¶16

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

¶17

ORDER SHEET

¶18

after calculating update interest instead of value dating.
The OTS amount will include this Rs.10 Lacs paid on
orders of Tribunal. The bank has admitted that they will
not be able to sell the property at the valuation but submitted their hands are tight.
11. The Tribunal has come to conclusion that Bank is not entitled for charging interest for delaying the recovery by themselves and for misbehaving with senior citizen the turning him out of branch and throwing his letter of OTS.
12. As per this the borrower should pay Rs.9.50 Lacs as full and final payment under loan account.
13. In view of the above, I pass the following order. ORDER
A. The Securitisation Application No.200/2023 stands
allowed.
B. The action taken by the respondent bank is hereby quashed and set aside.
C. The borrower / applicant is directed to pay Rs.9.50 Lacs
as full and final payment under loan account. After
payment of this Rs.9.50 Lacs (Rupees Nine Lacs Fifty Thousand only), the account will be closed, securities will be released and Release Deed will be executed. Bank will issue No Dues to the borrower / applicant.
D. File be consigned to the record room.

¶19

[SBJ] (SA No.200/2023) Page 3 of 4

¶20

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD (BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD) ORDER SHEET

¶21

E. The above order be not given effect till appeal period is over.

¶22

F. The Registrar is directed to send copy of the Judgment to the applicants and respondents .

¶23

Judgment be uploaded on the official website.

¶24

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶25

[SBJ] (SA No.200/2023) Page 4 of 4

M S Apurva Marketing through Its Proprietor Shri Dadasaheb Vithalrao Sapike v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M S Apurva Marketing through Its Proprietor Shri Dadasaheb Vithalrao Sapike v. Canara Bank

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 Raju Dattu Patil

Bank of India versus Prayagabai @ Parighabai W/o Haribhai Labade

Bank of India versus Avinash Raghunath Rathod

Ms Narsinha Sugar Pvt. Ltd. versus Rare Asset Reconstruction Ltd.

State Bank of India versus M/s Shree Krushna Plastics

Canara Bank versus Ravindra Gajanan Fadnis