Allowed

Federal Bank v. Shankar

DRT30 May 2025OA/166/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by Federal Bank Ltd for recovery of dues from agriculturalists. The court reduced the penal interest claimed and adjusted the future interest rate to 9% per annum, directing the respondents to pay Rs. 70,77,034/-. The application was disposed of ex-parte due to non-appearance of respondents.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs. 70,77,034/- with future interest at 9% p.a., coupled with entitlement to sell mortgaged properties and issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Federal Bank versus Shankar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 30.05.2022 Registered on: 13.02.2023 Decided on: 30.05.2025 Duration: Y M D 03 -- --

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE. (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.166/2023.

¶3

The Federal Bank Ltd .

¶4

A Banking Company within the meaning of Companies Act, 2013 having its Registered Office at Federal Tower, ALWAYE, KERALA and having one of its branches amongst other places at S.T. Colony, Sangli, Keshar Bhawan, 100 Ft. Road, Near Ganesh Mandir, Vishrambag, Sangli 416 415.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Mr. Shankar Ganapati Magdum Age 55 years, Occ.:-Agriculturist,

¶8

2. Mrs. Ambubai Shankar Magdum Age 45 years, Occ.:-Agriculturist,

¶9

3. Mr. Sachin Maruti Magdum Age 38 years, Occ.:- Agriculturist All R/at – Lingnur, 174, Berad, Shinde, Dhangar Vasti, Parisar, Tal. Miraj, District Sangli-416 401.

¶10

… Defendants

¶11

APPEARANCES

¶12

For the Applicant Mr. Parth Barsode i/b Adv. Nikhil Barsode For the Defendants Ex-parte.

¶13

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs.74,39,003.48Ps.

(OA No.166/2023)

Page 1 of 6

[ANIL]

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 30^th May, 2025)

¶18

Applicant Bank has filed present application for recovery of aggregate sum of Rs.74,39,003.48Ps [ i.e. Rs.37,10,982/- towards FKCC A/c No.14945500006168 & Rs.37,28,021.48Ps. towards Term Loan A/c No.14946600001968 ] together with future interest thereon @9.60% p.a. + Penal Interest @4% with monthly rests = @13.60% p.a. respectively till actual realization from defendant Nos.1 to 3.

¶19

Brief facts of the application are as under :-

¶20

Defendant Nos.1 to 3 approached the Applicant Bank on

¶21

08.08.2016 and requested for FKCC Crop loan and Term Loan for Grape Garden Development. The Applicant Bank sanctioned FKCC Crop Loan of Rs.20,00,000/- and Term Loan of Rs.20,00,000/- for land development for crop cultivation and Grape Garden Development, upon certain terms and conditions.

¶22

In order to secure the said Loan facilities, the defendants have executed necessary loan transactions and security documents on 09.08.2016 in favour of the Applicant Bank, as set out in Para No.5.7 of the Original Application.

¶23

Defendant Nos.1 to 3 have mortgaged the immovable properties duly registered in the office of SRO Miraj-I at Sr. No.4301/2016, on 09.08.2016 i.e. Agricultural pieces of land bearing Gat No.623 area 2H 33 Ares, Gat No.673 area 0H 55 Ares from and out of total land area 1H 11 Ares + fallow land area 03

(OA No.166/2023)

Page 2 of 6

[ANIL]

Ares and Gat No.1474/7 area 2H 18 Ares + fallow land area 8 Ares at village Lingnur, Taluka Miraj, District Sangli, more particularly described in Schedule-I of the Original Application.

¶28

So also, the Defendants have hypothecated standing crops cultivated/ proposed to be cultivated and all other movable assets created out of bank finance.

¶29

It is contended that the defendants have availed and enjoyed credit facilities and utilized both the loan facilities upto complete satisfaction for ensuing purposes. However, the same is never disclosed nor repaid towards loan liability. So also, both the loan accounts became irregular went into defaults and became overdue and in arrears. Time and again the defendants were called upon to regularize loan accounts by remittance of overdue installments and interest accrued but all the requests were futile attempts as there is no remittance came up. Consequently, for want of remittance of principal monies and accrued interest both the loan accounts dwindled to NPA and classified as NPA on 31.05.2019.

¶30

Thereafter, the Applicant Bank on 22.11.2021 issued Legal Notice to the defendants by RPAD calling upon them to liquidate the dues and close loan accounts. The Defendants failed and neglected to comply with the demand in the said Notice.

¶31

Hence, this application is filed.

(OA No.166/2023)

Page 3 of 6

[ANIL]

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against her vide Order dt.25.04.2025 passed below Application (Exhibit-01).

¶36

The Applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exh.-6) of Mr. Gangadhar Raghunath Joshi, Manager and Power of Attorney holder, which supports the case of the Applicant elucidated in the application.

¶37

The Applicant Bank has produced in evidence the original loan documents at Sr.Nos.AW-1/1 to AW-1/16, which corroborate the case of the Applicant Bank.

¶38

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

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

(OA No.166/2023)

Page 4 of 6

[ANIL]

The Applicant Bank has claimed Penal Interest of Rs.1,56,871/57 Ps for FKCC & Rs.02,05,097.84Ps for Term Loan, which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.74,39,003.48Ps is reduced to Rs.70,77,034 /-.

¶45

The Applicant Bank has claimed future interest @9.60% p.a. + 4% penal interest =13.60%p.a. respectively. 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.

¶46

Hence, I pass the following order: -

¶47

ORDER

¶48

(A) Original Application No.166/2023 is allowed with costs.

¶49

(B) Defendant Nos.1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay a sum of Rs.70,77,034/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Thirty Four only) [i.e. Rs.35,54,110.43/- towards FKCC Account No.14945500006168 & Rs.35,22,923.64/- towards Term Loan Account No.14946600001968] with future interest @9% p.a. (Simple) to the Applicant Bank from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 30.05.2022 till payment / realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

(OA No.166/2023)

Page 5 of 6

[ANIL]

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by registered Deed of Mortgage of the properties i.e. Agricultural pieces of land bearing Gat No.623 area 2H 33 Ares, Gat No.673 area 0H 55 Ares from and out of total land area 1H 11 Ares + fallow land area 03 Ares and Gat No.1474/7 area 2H 18 Ares + fallow land area 8 Ares at village Lingnur, Taluka Miraj, District Sangli, more particularly described in Schedule-I of the Original Application.

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

Sd/Place: Pune (Dilip G. Murumkar) Date: 30.05.2025 Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶57

(OA No.166/2023)

¶58

Page 6 of 6

¶59

[ANIL]

Federal Bank v. Shankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Federal Bank v. Shankar

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr Kirtikumar Kanhyalal Devi Prop Yash Metals

Bank of Baroda versus Anil Balvram Yadhav

Idbi Bank versus Rupali

Federal Bank versus Rajkumar Kagwade

Uco Bank versus Shankar Veer

Idbi Bank versus Ghanshyam