Allowed

Uco Bank v. Sadashiv Mantur

DRT11 Feb 2025OA/271/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

UCO Bank filed an original application for recovery of Rs. 25,56,385/- along with future interest from two defendants who defaulted on a housing loan sanctioned in 2016 for the purchase of a flat. The Defendants appeared ex-parte. The Tribunal allowed the application, directing payment of the principal amount along with future interest at 9% per annum simple interest and granting the Bank the righ

What did the court decide?

Directed defendants to pay Rs. 25,56,385/- plus future interest @9% p.a. simple; granted right to sell mortgaged property; directed issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Uco Bank versus Sadashiv Mantur — Consumer Protection | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on : 03.10.2022 Registered on : 18.02.2023 Decided on : 11.02.2025 Duration : Y M D 02 04 08

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 271/2023.

¶3

UCO Bank,

¶4

A Corporate Body constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 having its head office at 10, B.T.M. Sarani, Kolkata and branch at – Shop No.1, Neel Atharva Building, MTNL Road, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad 410 206.

¶5

.. Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 Shri Sadashiv Laxman Mantur, Age Adult, Occ. – Service, R/at Flat No.1/1, Himgiri Co-operative Housing Soiety, Cuf Nagar, Near Birmole Hospital, Thana Naka, Panvel, Raigad 410 206. 2 Sou. Swati Sadashiv Mantur, Age Adult, Occ. – Service, R/at Flat No.1/1, Himgiri Co-operative Housing Soiety, Cuf Nagar, Near Birmole Hospital, Thana Naka, Panvel, Raigad 410 206.

.. Defendants

(OA No. 271/2023)

Page 1 of 5

Sanap

APPEARANCES

For Applicant Advocate R.B. Ganbote. For Defendants Ex parte.

¶14

Total Claim Amount – Rs.25,56,385/-

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

(Delivered on 11^th February, 2025)

¶17

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.25,56,385/- together with future interest @11.70% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶18

Brief facts of the application are as under :

¶19

As per the loan application dated 20.04.206 of the defendants for purchase of flat, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Housing Loan of Rs.31,16,410/- to defendant Nos.1 and 2 vide Sanction Letter dated 07.06.2016.

¶20

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants executed necessary loan and security documents along with deed of mortgage of Flat No. 102 admeasuring 425 sq. ft. on the first floor of Pancham Co-operative Housing Society, Plot No.7, Road No. 4, Sector 19, New Panvel, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad, in favour of the applicant Bank.

(OA No. 271/2023)

Page 2 of 5

Sanap

Further, the defendants have also executed Acknowledgment on 30.08.2022 in favour of the applicant Bank and confirmed the balance in the loan account of the defendants.

¶25

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Hence, the applicant Bank has classified the account of the defendants as Non Performing Asset in accordance with guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Despite personal visits and telephonic calls and reminders from time to time, the defendants failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶26

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 03.02.2025 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶27

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Amit, Manager and Principal Officer of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1 to AW-8 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

(OA No. 271/2023)

Page 3 of 5

Sanap

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

¶32

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.

¶33

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @11.70% 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.

¶34

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶35

ORDER

¶36

(A) Original Application No. 271/2023 is allowed with costs.

¶37

(B) Defendant Nos.1 and 2 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.25,56,385/(Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Five only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 03.10.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this

(OA No. 271/2023)

Page 4 of 5

Sanap

operative order.

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage of Flat No. 102 admeasuring 425 sq. ft. on the first floor of Pancham Co-operative Housing Society, Plot No.7, Road No. 4, Sector 19, New Panvel, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad, more particularly described in the Para No. 5.7 of the Original Application.

¶43

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

¶44

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶45

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

¶46

Place : Pune Date : 11.02.2025

¶47

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

¶48

(OA No. 271/2023)

¶49

Page 5 of 5

¶50

Sanap

Uco Bank v. Sadashiv Mantur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Sadashiv Mantur

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 Rajendraprasad Muttilingam Martha

Canara Bank versus Kamlesh Patankar

Hdfc Bank versus Mr. Bapurav Pandurang Chandagude

Bank of Maharashtra versus Ajinath Kedar

Punjab National Bank versus M//S. v T Enterprises Prop. Mr. Vikas Sharadchandra Agrawalrwal

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sachin Bhosale