Allowed

Federal Bank v. Vishwas Patil

DRT20 Feb 2025OA/1389/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Federal Bank Limited against six defendants. The court awarded recovery of the reduced claim amount of Rs.36,04,429 along with future interest at 9% per annum, confirming the bank's claim secured by mortgaged agricultural land despite the defendants' absence.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly or severally to pay Rs.36,04,429 along with future interest at 9% p.a. from 20.02.2023; mortgage and Recovery Certificate directed.

Federal Bank versus Vishwas Patil — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on	: 20.02.2023
Registered on	: 30.10.2023
Decided on	: 20.02.2025
Duration	: Y M D
	02 00 00

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 1389/2023.

¶3

The Federal Bank Limited, A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 (18/2013) and a banking company within the meaning Companies Act, 2013 having its registered office at Federal Towers, Bank Junction, Alwaye, Ernakulum District, Kerala and branch at – Ground Floor, C.S. No. 1425, C Ward, Ford Corner, Laxmipuri, Samant Towers, Kolhapur – 416 002.

¶4

.. Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1 Mr. Vishwas Sakharam Patil, Age 48 years, Occ. Agri. & Business, R/o : At Post Gogve, Taluka Panhala, District Kolhapur 416 205.

¶7

2 Mr. Rangrao Sakharam Patil, Age 53 years, Occ. Agri. & Business, R/o : At Post Gogve, Taluka Panhala, District Kolhapur 416 205.

(OA No. 1389/2023)

Page 1 of 7

Sanap

3 Mr. Namdeo Sakharam Patil, Age 49 years, Occ. Agri. & Business, R/o : At Post Gogve, Taluka Panhala, District Kolhapur 416 205.

¶12

4 Mrs. Manisha Rangrao Patil, Age 47 years, Occ. Agri. & Business, R/o : At Post Gogve, Taluka Panhala, District Kolhapur 416 205.

¶13

5 Mrs. Surekha Vishwas Patil, Age 31 years, Occ. Agri. & Business, R/o : At Post Gogve, Taluka Panhala, District Kolhapur 416 205.

¶14

6 Mrs. Vandana Namdev Patil, Age 37 years, Occ. Agri. & Business, R/o : At Post Gogve, Taluka Panhala, District Kolhapur 416 205.

¶15

.. Defendants

¶16

APPEARANCES

¶17

For Applicant Advocate Nikhil Barsode. For Defendants Ex parte.

¶18

Total Claim Amount – Rs.39,44,571/-

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

(Delivered on 20^th February, 2025)

¶21

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.39,44,571/- together with future interest @11.63% per annum from the date of Application till

(OA No. 1389/2023)

Page 2 of 7

Sanap

realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶26

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶27

Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are owners of agricultural land and they have offered the property as mortgage. Defendant Nos.2 to 6 supplemented requests for loan as co-borrowers and therefore, all the defendants are borrowers.

¶28

As per the loan application of the defendants, the applicant Bank sanctioned the following loan facilities to the defendants.

¶29

Name of the facility	Amount	Date of sanction
AMTL Allied Agri 1	Rs.10,20,000/-	24.06.2014
AMTL Allied Agri 2	Rs.5,80,000/-	24.06.2014
Kisan Credit Card 3	Rs.2,00,000/-	24.06.2014

¶30

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants executed necessary loan and security documents along with deed of mortgage of Land Gat Nos. 22, 23, 73, 76, 87, 125, 148, 155, 157 and 166 situated at village Gogave, Taluka Panhala, District Kolhapur and Land Gat Nos. 17 and 18/6 situated at village Konoli, Taluka Panhala, District Kolhapur, in favour of the applicant Bank.

(OA No. 1389/2023)

Page 3 of 7

Sanap

Further, the defendants have also executed Balance Confirmation Letters on 23.03.2019 and 04.04.2020 in favour of the applicant Bank and thereby confirmed the balance payable and due in loan accounts.

¶35

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Hence, on 30.06.2016, the applicant Bank has classified the account of the defendants as Non Performing Asset in accordance with guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Therefore, on 26.09.2016, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendants. Despite service of Notice, the defendants failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank.

¶36

Hence, this application is filed.

¶37

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 07.02.2025 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶38

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Pandurang Parasharam Kadam, Assistant Vice President and Authorized Signatory holding Power of Attorney of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original

(OA No. 1389/2023)

Page 4 of 7

Sanap

loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1-1 to AW-1-21 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶43

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

¶44

Since the defendants failed to appear 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.

¶45

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.

¶46

The applicant Bank has claimed Penal Interest of Rs.2,01,663/and Rs.1,38,479/- total of Rs.3,40,142/- towards AMTL loan facilities, which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.39,44,571/- is reduced to Rs.36,04,429/-.

¶47

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @11.63% per annum. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum

(OA No. 1389/2023)

Page 5 of 7

Sanap

(simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest. Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(A) Original Application No. 1389/2023 is allowed with costs.

¶54

(B) Defendant Nos.1 to 6 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.36,04,429/(Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Four Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Nine only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 20.02.2023 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶55

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage of Land Gat Nos. 22, 23, 73, 76, 87, 125, 148, 155, 157 and 166 situated at village Gogave, Taluka Panhala, District Kolhapur and Land Gat Nos. 17 and 18/6 situated at village Konoli, Taluka Panhala, District Kolhapur, more particularly described in the Schedule I of the Original Application.

(OA No. 1389/2023)

Page 6 of 7

Sanap

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged property to recover its dues.

¶60

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶61

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

¶62

Sd/(Dilip G Murumkar) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 20.02.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶63

(OA No. 1389/2023)

¶64

Page 7 of 7

¶65

Sanap

Federal Bank v. Vishwas Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Federal Bank v. Vishwas Patil

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

Bank of India versus Ajay Thengil

State Bank of India versus M/S Gaensh Services-Prop Mr Hrudaynath Shamrao Parte

Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) versus M/S. Shree Samrarth Engineering Works Prop. Mr. Sanket Gokul Dumbre

Federal Bank versus Bhauso

Punjab National Bank versus Ashalata Sopan Zagade

Canara Bank versus Ranjit