Allowed

Federal Bank v. Ramesh Bapu Jadav(Deceased)

DRT20 Mar 2025OA/1379/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery. The court adjudicated a principal sum reduced by penal interest and awarded future interest at 9%. The order includes the right to sell mortgaged properties and issues a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 23,77,368 with future interest @9% p.a.; right to sell mortgaged properties; issue of Recovery Certificate.

Federal Bank versus Ramesh Bapu Jadav(Deceased) — Consumer Protection | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 18.04.2023 Registered on: 30.10.2023 Decided on: 20.03.2025 Duration: Y M D 01 11 02

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE. (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.1379/2023.

¶3

The Federal Bank Ltd . A Company incorporated and registered under Indian Companies Act, 1956 [1/1956] and also a Banking Company having its Registered Office at Federal Tower, Bank Junction, ALWAYE, Ernakulum District, KERALA and having one of its branches amongst other places at 151, Railway Line, Dufferin Chowk, Solapur-413 001.

¶4

… Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. Mr. Ramesh Bapu Jadhav (Deceased) Through legal Heirs -

¶7

1A. Mr. Umesh Ramesh Jadhav Age 41 years, Occ.:-Agriculturist,

¶8

1B. Mr. Samadhan Ramesh Jadhav Age 38 years, Occ.:-Agriculturist

¶9

1C. Smt. Shobha Ramesh Jadhav Age 60 years, Occ.:-Agriculturist, All R/at – Jadhav Vasti, Kurul, Taluka Mohol, District Solapur-413 213.

(OA No.1379/2023)

Page 1 of 7

[ANIL]

2. Mr. Umesh Ramesh Jadhav Age 41 Years, Occ.- Agriculturist

¶14

3. Mr. Samadhan Ramesh Jadhav Age 38 years, Occ.:- Agriculturist R/at – Jadhav Vasti, Kurul, Taluka Mohol, District Solapur-413 213. … Defendants

¶15

APPEARANCES

¶16

For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶17

Mr. Nikhil Barsode - Advocate Ex-parte.

¶18

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs.25,31,562/-.

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

(Delivered on 20^th March, 2025)

¶21

The Applicant Bank has filed present application for recovery of aggregate sum of Rs. 25,31,562 /- towards AMTL A/c No.15936600002677 together with future interest thereon @12.85% p.a. alongwith penal interest @4% p.a. with monthly rests till actual realization from the defendant Nos.1 to 3.

¶22

Brief facts of the application are as under :-

¶23

Defendant Nos.1 to 3 approached the Applicant Bank on

¶24

17.05.2016 and requested for AMTL Loan of Rs.18 Lakhs for Land Development. The Applicant Bank sanctioned AMTL Loan of Rs.18,00,000/- on 22.06.2017, to defendant No.1 for Land Development. Defendant Nos.2 & 3 were co-borrower.

(OA No.1379/2023)

Page 2 of 7

[ANIL]

In order to secure the said AMTL Loan, the defendants have executed necessary loan transactions and security documents on 13.02.2017 in favour of the Applicant Bank, as set out in Para No.5.7 of the Original Application.

¶29

Defendants have mortgaged the immovable properties duly registered in SRO Karmala at Sr. No.2599/2016, as mentioned below –

¶30

(A) – All that piece and parcel of agricultural land bearing Gat No.9 area 45 Ares at village Kurul, Taluka Mohol, District Solapur, owned by Late Mr. Ramesh Bapu Jadhav – Defendant No.1, more particularly described in Schedule-I, of the Original Application.

¶31

(B) - All that piece and parcel of agricultural land bearing Gat No.519 area 33 Ares at village Kurul, Taluka Mohol, District Solapur, owned by Late Mr. Ramesh Bapu Jadhav – Defendant No.1, more particularly described in Schedule-I, of the Original Application.

¶32

(C) - All that piece and parcel of agricultural land bearing Gat No.286 area 52 Ares at village Kurul, Taluka Mohol, District Solapur owned by Late Mr. Ramesh Bapu Jadhav – Defendant No.1, more particularly described in Schedule-I of the Original Application.

¶33

It is contended that after availing and utilizing AMTL Loan, defendants failed to repay the instalments. Eventually, defendants have executed balance confirmation letter dt. 18.07.2919

(OA No.1379/2023)

Page 3 of 7

[ANIL]

confirming balance due and payable in respective loan account. Thereafter, the loan account was classified as Non-Performing Asset on 21.01.2021.

¶38

Thereafter, the Applicant Bank on 02.02.2022 issued Legal Notice to the defendants by RPAD calling upon them to liquidate the entire dues closing the account. In response to legal notice, Defendant No.2 sent reply dated 24.02.2022 to the applicant bank denying disbursement of entire loan by his father. Defendant No.3 failed and neglected to comply with the demand in the said Notice. Hence, this application is filed.

¶39

Though Defendant No.2 sent reply to the notice issued by the applicant bank and thereby denied disbursement of entire amount by his father but none of the defendants appeared despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against them vide Order dt.20.02.2025 passed below Application (Exhibit-01).

¶40

The Applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit6) of Mr. Rajeev Darshan Sharma, Branch Head and Authorized Signatory, which supports the case of the Applicant elucidated in the application.

¶41

The Applicant Bank has produced in evidence the original loan documents at Sr.Nos.AW-1/1 to AW-1/14, which corroborate the case of the Applicant Bank.

(OA No.1379/2023)

Page 4 of 7

[ANIL]

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

¶46

Since the defendants failed to file evidence on record 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.

¶47

The Applicant Bank has claimed relief in respect of hypothecated assets, as mentioned in Schedule-II of the Original Application. However, there is no detailed description with respect to the hypothecated assets. Therefore, the relief in terms of hypothecated assets cannot be granted.

¶48

The Applicant Bank has claimed Penal Interest of Rs.1,54,194/- for Term Loan Account No.15936600002677, which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.25,31,562/- is reduced to Rs.23,77,368 /-.

¶49

The Applicant Bank has claimed future interest @14.85% p.a. plus penal interest. Considering the facts of the present case; I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple) for all the facilities, it would be just and reasonable.

¶50

Hence, I pass the following order: -

(OA No.1379/2023)

Page 5 of 7

[ANIL]

ORDER

(A) Original Application No.1379/2023 is allowed with costs.

¶56

(B) Defendant Nos.1 (A to C) and Defendant No.2 to 3 jointly or severally shall pay a sum of Rs.23,77,368/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Eight only) towards AMTL A/c No.15936600002677 with future interest @9% p.a. (Simple) to the Applicant Bank from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 18.04.2023 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶57

(C)

¶58

The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by registered Deed of Mortgage in Sub Registrar Office, Karmala, District Solapur at Sr. No.2599/2016 dated 19.07.2016, of the properties mentioned below:–

(OA No.1379/2023)

Page 6 of 7

[ANIL]

(D) The Applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged immovable properties to recover its dues.

¶66

(E) The liability of Defendant Nos.1A to 1C is restricted to the extent of estate inherited by them from Deceased Ramesh Bapu Jadhav – Defendant No.1.

¶67

(F) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶68

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

¶69

Sd/Place: Pune (Dilip G. Murumkar) Date: 20.03.2025 Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶70

(OA No.1379/2023)

¶71

Page 7 of 7

¶72

[ANIL]

Federal Bank v. Ramesh Bapu Jadav(Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Federal Bank v. Ramesh Bapu Jadav(Deceased)

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

Svc Co. Operative Bank Limited versus Wisdom Pharmaceticals

Svc Co. Operative Bank Limited versus Nilesh

Uco Bank versus Ankit Phadtare

Bank of India versus Gaurav

Federal Bank versus Sima Jarande

Federal Bank versus Vidyulata Mali