Allowed

Bank of India v. Rajendraprasad Muttilingam Martha

DRT10 Feb 2025OA/206/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of dues from the defendant borrower. The court directed payment of the principal sum along with future interest at 9% per annum and issued a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Correction to principal sum of Rs. 27,31,169/-, future interest at 9% per annum from 21.01.2022, and issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Bank of India versus Rajendraprasad Muttilingam Martha — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on : 21.01.2022 Registered on : 10.03.2022 Decided on : 10.02.2025 Duration : Y M D 03 00 19

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 206/2022.

¶3

Bank of India,

¶4

A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and having its head office at Star House, C-5, G Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 and Branch Office at – 848, New Paccha Peth, Ashok Chowk, Solapur 413 006.

¶5

.. Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Rajendraprasad Muttilingam Martha, Plot No. 139, MIDC, Akkalkot Road, Solapur 413 006.

¶8

.. Defendant

¶9

APPEARANCES

¶10

For Applicant	Advocate Pradip Yadav.
For Defendant	Exparte.

¶11

Total Claim Amount – Rs.27,31,168=52

(OA No. 206/2022)

Page 1 of 5

Sanap

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 10^th February, 2025)

¶16

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.27,31,168=52, by rounding Rs.27,31,169/- together with future interest @13.15% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendant.

¶17

Brief facts of the application are as under :

¶18

The defendant is the borrower. As per the loan application of the defendant, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Cash Credit facility of Rs.20,00,000/- to the defendant vide Sanction Letter dated 13.11.2014.

¶19

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant executed necessary loan and security documents along with deed of hypothecation of raw material like cotton yarn, chemicals, colour, dying machinery etc. in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶20

Further, the defendant has also executed balance confirmation in loan account on 29.07.2017 and 20.07.2020 in

¶21

favour of the applicant Bank and thereby confirmed the balance amount in the loan account.

(OA No. 206/2022)

Page 2 of 5

Sanap

The applicant Bank contended that the defendant committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Therefore, on 20.03.2021, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendant. Despite service of Notice, the defendant failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank.

¶26

Hence, this application is filed.

¶27

The defendant failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 07.02.2023 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶28

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Raja Raman, Chief Manager and Power of Attorney Holder of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW1 to AW-9 along with list (Exhibit 9), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶29

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

¶30

Since the defendant 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

(OA No. 206/2022)

Page 3 of 5

Sanap

reliefs as claimed.

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.

¶36

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @13.15% per annum. 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. 206/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶40

(B) The defendant shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.27,31,169/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Thirty One Thousand One Hundred Sixty Nine only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 21.01.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

(OA No. 206/2022)

Page 4 of 5

Sanap

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

¶46

Sd/(Dilip G Murumkar) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 10.02.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶47

(OA No. 206/2022)

¶48

Page 5 of 5

¶49

Sanap

Bank of India v. Rajendraprasad Muttilingam Martha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Rajendraprasad Muttilingam Martha

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

Hdfc Bank versus Mr. Bapurav Pandurang Chandagude

Federal Bank versus Bharat Shedbale

Union Bank of India versus M/S Dalvi Soaps

Canara Bank versus Kamlesh Patankar

Uco Bank versus Sadashiv Mantur

Bank of Maharashtra versus Ajinath Kedar