Allowed

Bank of India v. M/S Tirupati Veet Udyog

DRT24 Feb 2025OA/247/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovering Rs. 35,52,530.69 plus future interest from a defaulted borrower. Due to the defendant's ex-parte absence, the court confirmed the loan dues and directed recovery, limiting future interest to 9% per annum and ordering the sale of hypothecated stock as security.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Rs.35,52,530.69 with future interest @9% p.a.; recovery certificate issued; hypothecated stocks authorized for sale.

Bank of India versus M/S Tirupati Veet Udyog — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on:	10.05.2022
Registered on:	18.07.2022
Decided on:	24.02.2025
Duration:	Y M D
	02 09 15

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J.R. Chauhan Presiding officer)

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs.35,52,530.69Ps./- ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.247/2022

¶4

Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (Act V of 1970) having its Head Office at star house, Plot No. C-5, G block, BandraKurla Complex, Bandra [East], Mumbai 400 051, and one of its Branches at Nanded Branch, situated in Santkrupa Market, G G Road, Nanded, Maharashtra – 431601, through its power of Attorney Holder and Chief Manager Shri. Prashant Sharadchandra Nashikkar, Age: 57 years, Occupation: Chief Manager, Bank of India. Versus

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

M/s. Tirupati Veet Udyog Through its Proprietor, Mr. Chandrakant Bhivaji Bhuktare, R/o Brahmwada Post Mugat Taluka Mudhkhed, Nanded.

¶7

And also Residing at

¶8

R/o: Post Dhanora (Mota), Taluka Purna, District Parbhani.

¶9

… Defendant

¶10

[SBJ] (OA No.247/2022) Page 1 of 8

¶11

APPEARANCES For the Applicant For Defendant

¶12

Mr. S.R. Vakil - Advocate Ex-parte

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

(Delivered on 24^th February, 2025)

¶15

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.35,52,530.69Ps./- (Rupees ThirtyFive Lacs Fifty-Two Thousand, Five Hundred Thirty and Paisa Sixty-Nine only) as on 24-03-2022 plus future interest and charges till its payment at the contractual rate, from the date of filing of present Original Application till realization of the entire dues and costs of the application from the defendant.

¶16

Brief facts of the application are as under :

¶17

The defendant is a sale Proprietorship firm represented by the sole Proprietor Shri Chandrakant Bhivaji Bhuktare. The defendant approached the applicant bank, who has applied on 29.01.2015 under Micro and Small Enterprises (MSE’s) Scheme of the applicant bank for credit facility to the tune of Rs.25 Lacs (Rupees Twenty-Five Lacs only). As per the loan application dated 29^th January, 2015 of defendant, the

¶18

[SBJ] (OA No.247/2022) Page 2 of 8

¶19

applicant Bank sanctioned the Cash Credit facility of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lacs only) to defendant vide Sanction Letter dated 09^th February, 2015. The rate of interest agreed was at 13.10% per annum.

¶20

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendant signed, executed and acknowledged the loan documents, i.e. Demand Promissory Note, Bearer Letter, Draft Declaration L-515 to be obtained from the borrower and Composite Document in favour of the applicant bank mentioned in Paragraph No.5.4 (a to d) of the O.A.

¶21

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendant firm through its Proprietor executed Hypothecation-cumLoan Agreement (CHA-I) on 16.02.2015 in favour of the applicant bank thereby creating the security interest of applicant bank over the securities mentioned in Paragraph No. 3 A of the Original Application.

¶22

The applicant bank further contended that the loan account of the defendant had become irregular since long and due to which a large amount has become due and payable by the defendant. The defendant has failed and neglected to repay the dues of the applicant bank as agreed under various

¶23

[SBJ] (OA No.247/2022) Page 3 of 8

¶24

security documents and as such the loan account of the defendant has classified as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) since 30.06.2019.

¶25

The defendant has executed the Letter of Acknowledgement of Debt on 13.02.2018 admitting the liability of Rs.25,71,805/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lacs Seventy-One Thousand Eight Hundred Five only)as on 12.02.2018. After signing and executing the acknowledgement of debt, still the defendant failed to keep the CC account under limit.

¶26

Again the defendant approached the applicant bank and signed and executed another acknowledgement of debt on 10.02.2021 and thereby admitted the dues and liability of Rs.25,65,434.71 Ps./- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lacs Sixty-Five Thousand Four Hundred Thirty-Four and Paisa SeventyOne only) as on 09.02.2021.

¶27

The applicant bank further contended that the defendant being the borrower is liable to pay the applicant bank an amount of Rs.35,52,530.69Ps./- (Rupees Thirty-Five Lacs Fifty-Two Thousand Five Hundred Thirty and Paisa SixtyNine only) as outstanding in the Cash Credit account as on 24.03.2022 together with future interest from the date of

¶28

[SBJ] (OA No.247/2022) Page 4 of 8

¶29

filing of the present application and till the realization of the amount in respect of the said facility. As the account of defendant has become irregular and as such the same is turned into Non-Performing Asset on 30.06.2019. Hence, the applicant bank has filed this Original Application to recover the dues from the defendant.

¶30

The particulars of the claim are as under:

¶31

	CC A/c No.065030110000041
Sr. No.	PARTICULARS	AMOUNT in Rs.
a)	Principal outstanding in Account No. 065030110000041	25,69,201.00
b)	Unapplied interest calculated from day of NPA till date but not debited to the loan account.	9,83,329.69
	Total = (Thirty Five Lacs Fifty Two Thousand Five Hundred Thirty & Sixty Nine Paisa only + Plus future interest & charges till its payment.	35,52,530.69

¶32

As the defendant failed to repay the outstanding amount, the applicant bank issued a Legal Demand Notice through its advocate on 24^th March 2022, which was sent to the defendant on 25.03.2022 through post.

¶33

In this matter the defendant failed to appear despite service of summons by hand as per the Service Affidavit (Exhibit-07). Hence the defendant is proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 30^th October, 2023.

¶34

[SBJ] (OA No.247/2022) Page 5 of 8

¶35

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of Evidence (Exhibit-04) of Mr. Prashant Sharadchandra Nashikkar, Chief Manager of the applicant Bank i.e. Bank of India, Nanded Branch and has produced on record the original loan documents at Sr. Nos.AW-1/1 to AW-1/11 alongwith List (Exhibit-05), 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 evidence of the applicant bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for reliefs as claimed.

¶38

The applicant Bank has claimed as on 24-03-2022 plus future interest and charges till its payment at contractual rate from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the entire dues and costs of the application from the defendant. 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.

¶39

[SBJ] (OA No.247/2022) Page 6 of 8

¶40

16. Hence, I pass the following order.

¶41

ORDER

¶42

(A) Original Application No.247/2022 is allowed with cost.

¶43

(B) Defendant is hereby ordered and directed to pay to the applicant the aggregate sum of Rs.35,52,530.69Ps./- (Rupees Thirty-Five Lacs Fifty-Two Thousand, Five Hundred Thirty and Paisa Sixty-Nine only) along with future interest @9% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the original application i.e. 10^th May, 2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶44

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the hypothecation deed of properties executed by defendant i.e. Stocks of Bricks, as is mentioned in Para No.3-A of the Original Application.

¶45

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the hypothecated properties as described in Hypothecation Cum Loan Agreement (Cha-I) dated 16.0-2.2015 to recover its dues.

¶46

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶47

[SBJ] (OA No.247/2022) Page 7 of 8

¶48

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

¶49

Place : Aurangabad. Date :24.02.2025.

¶50

Sd/(Dr. J.R. Chauhan) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶51

[SBJ] (OA No.247/2022) Page 8 of 8

Bank of India v. M/S Tirupati Veet Udyog

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. M/S Tirupati Veet Udyog

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

State Bank of India versus Gayabai Bajirao Shinde

State Bank of India versus M/S Shree Sai Sports

Icici Bank Limited versus Chandrakant

State Bank of India versus Abhay Chandrakant Kulkarni

Canara Bank versus Anand Prabhakar Khobragade

Ms Ramchandra Shivdas Agrawal versus The Malkapur Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd.