Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Ms Meera Maternity and General Hospital Prop Dr. Monika Baban Thorat

DRT15 Apr 2025OA/23/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues totaling approximately Rs. 1.34 crore. Interest rates were partially modified for Cash Credit and DFITL accounts. A Recovery Certificate was issued due to the defendant's ex-parte absence.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 1,34,02,748/- with future interest at modified or prayed rates and issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Union Bank of India versus Ms Meera Maternity and General… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 14.12.2021 Registered on: 18.01.2022 Decided on: 15.04.2025 Duration: Y M D 03 04 01

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.23/2022.

¶3

Union Bank of India

¶4

A Banking Company incorporated under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 having their Head Office at –239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021, and having one of their branch at – Camp Branch, (e-AB) (0906) 598, A, Sachapir Street, Camp, Pune-411 001, Maharashtra.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s Meera Maternity & General Hospital Through its ProprietorDr. Monika Baban Thorat Flat No.01, 1^st Floor, Agarwal Corner, S.No.12/1/1, Sadhna Chowk, Pune Solapur Road, Hadapsar, Pune-411 028.

¶8

…Defendant

¶9

APPEARANCES

¶10

For the Applicant Advocate – M/s M.V.Kini & Co. For the Defendant Ex-parte.

¶11

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.1,34,65,491.57Ps.

(OA No.23/2022)

Page 1 of 6

[ANIL]

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 15^th April, 2025)

¶16

The Applicant Bank has filed present application for recovery of an aggregate sum of Rs.1,34,65,491.57Ps [ Rs.1,07,24,492.28Ps towards Cash Credit A/c No.090613100000821; Rs.10,28,228.39Ps towards Term Loan A/c No.090630100030372; Rs.10,53,491.90Ps towards WCTL (UGECL) A/c No.090630100030673; and Rs.6,59,279/- towards DFITL Loan A/c No.090616350000001 ] with future interest @10.20%p.a.; @8.00% p.a. ; @7.50%p.a. & @10.20%p.a. respectively till repayment /realization of the entire dues from the respective defendant.

¶17

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶18

The Applicant Bank states that Defendant through its proprietor approached to the applicant bank on 22.01.2018 for availing OCC Limit of Rs.24 Lakhs for the purpose of working capital requirements. The applicant bank sanctioned the OCC Limit of Rs.24 Lakhs to the defendant on certain terms and conditions mentioned in the Original Application.

¶19

In the year 2019, defendant again approached to the applicant bank for renewal-cum-enhancement of OCC limit from Rs.24 lakhs to Rs.99 lakhs under Stand Up India Scheme for the purpose of working capital requirements, which was sanctioned on 01.02.2019 by the applicant bank.

¶20

Defendant through its Proprietor in the year 2020 again approached to the applicant bank for Term Loan (Covid Emergency line of Credit) of Rs.9.9 lakhs under CELC Scheme for the purpose of working capital. Pursuant to the said request, the applicant bank

(OA No.23/2022)

Page 2 of 6

[ANIL]

sanctioned Term Loan (Covid Emergency line of credit) of Rs.9.9 lakhs for working capital on 18.05.2020.

¶25

In the year 2020, again the defendant approached to the applicant bank for working capital Term Loan of Rs.9.90 lakhs under UGECL Scheme and the applicant bank sanctioned the said loan of Rs. 9.90 lakhs to the defendant on 02.07.2020, on certain terms and conditions.

¶26

On 27.12.2020, again the defendant approached to the applicant bank for Term Loan (FITL) of Rs.6,12,025/- for the purpose of conversion of accumulated interest charged during Covid-19 which was sanctioned by the applicant bank on 31.12.2020.

¶27

In order to secure the aforesaid Loan facilities, the defendant has executed loan and security documents including Composite Hypothecation Deeds dated 04.02.2019, 02.06.2020, 01.09.2020, 09.07.2020 and 30.01.2021 respectively and secured the loans by hypothecation of machineries procured under the Term loan and stocks and debts out of the finance, in favour of the applicant bank more particularly described in Schedule Á’ of OA and in Para Nos.5.8, 5,11, 5.14, 5.17 & 5.20 of the Original Application.

¶28

The Applicant Bank contended that the irregularities in maintaining the accounts and on payments of outstanding dues by the defendant became a cause of concern for the applicant bank. Hence, the said accounts of the Defendant with the Applicant Bank became Non-Performing Assets on 30.04.2021. Thereafter, the

(OA No.23/2022)

Page 3 of 6

[ANIL]

Applicant Bank issued Notice dated 08.10.2021 to the Defendant calling upon it/him to pay the outstanding due loan amounts together with interest, costs, charges and expenses, but failed to pay the due amount.

¶33

Hence, this application is filed.

¶34

Defendant failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per order dated 21.06.2024 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶35

The Applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Gajanan D. Pujarwad, Authorized Signatory and produced on record the Loan Transaction documents at Exhibit Nos.AW-1 to AW-74, which corroborates the case of the Applicant Bank.

¶36

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

¶37

Since the defendant failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Applicant Bank. Therefore, the Applicant Bank is entitled for the reliefs claimed.

¶38

The applicant bank has claimed relief in respect of the 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.

¶39

The applicant bank has claimed penal interest of Rs.52,371/towards Cash Credit Account; Rs.3,065/- towards Term Loan

(OA No.23/2022)

Page 4 of 6

[ANIL]

(CELC) Account; Rs.8/- towards WCTL (UGECL) Account and Rs.7,300/- towards DFITL Loan Account, which cannot be granted and the same (Total Rs.62,744/- ) is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.1,34,65,491.57Ps is reduced to Rs.1,34,02,748/- .

¶44

Applicant Bank has claimed future interest for Cash Credit Account @ 10.20%p.a.; Term Loan Account @8.00% p.a.; WCTL (UGECL) Account @7.50% p.a. and DFITL Loan account @10.20%p.a. respectively. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that for Cash Credit Loan Account and DFITL Loan account, if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple) and for Term Loan Account interest @8%p.a. (as prayed) and for WCTL (UGECL) loan account interest @7.50%p.a. (as prayed), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶45

Hence, I pass the following order:-

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(A) Original Application No.23/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶48

(B) Defendant shall pay an aggregate amount of Rs.1,34,02,748 /- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Four Lakhs Two Thousand Seven Hundred Fourty Eight only) [ i.e. Rs.1,06,72,121.28Ps towards Cash Credit Account No.090613100000821 with future interest @9% p.a. (Simple); Rs.10,25,163.39Ps. towards Term Loan (CELC) Account No.090630100030372 with future interest @8%p.a. (as prayed); Rs.10,53,483/- towards WCTL (UGECL) Account No. 090630100030673 with future

(OA No.23/2022)

Page 5 of 6

[ANIL]

interest @ 7.50% p.a. (as prayed) and Rs.6,51,979/- towards DFITL Loan Account No.090616350000001 with future interest @9% p.a. (Simple) ] from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e.14.12.2021 till payment / realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order to the Applicant Bank.

¶53

¶54

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

¶55

Sd/(Dilip G. Murumkar) Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶56

Place : Pune Date: 15.04.2025

¶57

(OA No.23/2022)

¶58

Page 6 of 6

¶59

[ANIL]

Union Bank of India v. Ms Meera Maternity and General Hospital Prop Dr. Monika Baban Thorat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Ms Meera Maternity and General Hospital Prop Dr. Monika Baban Thorat

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

Federal Bank versus Mustafa Jamadar

Federal Bank versus Rangrao Patil

Bank of Maharashtra versus Snheal Enterprises Prop Mr. Nilesh Madan Angolkar

State Bank of India versus Hitendra

Idbi Bank versus Arif

Federal Bank versus Satish Dubal