Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Pushpa Bansode

DRT5 Feb 2025OA/394/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for recovery of dues amounting to over Rs. 96 lakhs, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's claim against non-apPEARING defendants. The court improvised on the claimed amount to exclude penal interest and reduced the claimed future interest rate to 9% per annum simple, directing the defendants to pay the reduced principal with future simple interest and confirming the val

What did the court decide?

Defendants 1-3 and 1, 4, 5 jointly or severally to pay reduced principal amounts of Rs.63,91,260 and Rs.30,78,977 respectively with future interest at 9% p.a. from the date of application. Recovery ce

Bank of Maharashtra versus Pushpa Bansode — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on : 04.02.2021 Registered on : 24.03.2023 Decided on : 05.02.2025 Duration : Y M D 04 00 01

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 394/2023.

¶3

Bank of Maharashtra, A Body Corporate established under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its registered office at “Lokmangal”, 1501, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411005 and one of its branch office at Bhigwan Chowk, Baramati, Taluka Baramati, District Pune.

¶4

.. Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1 Sou. Pushpa Vasudev Bansode, Age Adult, Occ. Agriculture, R/at – Shindewadi, Post Kazad, Taluka Indapur, District Pune 413 104.

¶7

2 Shri Pandurang Vishnu Bansode, Age Adult, Occ. Agriculture, R/at – Shindewadi, Post Kazad, Taluka Indapur, District Pune 413 104.

(OA No. 394/2023)

Page 1 of 7

Sanap

3 Shri Manohar Bhanudas Jadhav, Age Adult, Occ. Agriculture, R/at – Shindewadi, Post Kazad, Taluka Indapur, District Pune 413 104.

¶12

4 Shri Vasudev Sadhu Bansode, Age Adult, Occ. Agriculture, R/at – Shindewadi, Post Kazad, Taluka Indapur, District Pune 413 104.

¶13

5 Shri Kisan Dattu Malve, Age Adult, Occ. Agriculture, R/at – Shindewadi, Post Kazad, Taluka Indapur, District Pune 413 104. .. Defendants

¶14

APPEARANCES

¶15

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

¶16

Total Claim Amount – Rs.96,23,444/-

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

(Delivered on 05^th February, 2025)

¶19

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.96,23,444/- together with future interest for Term Loan @13.65% per annum and for MKCC accounts @14.65% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶20

Brief facts of the application are as under :

(OA No. 394/2023)

Page 2 of 7

Sanap

As per the loan applications of defendant No.1, the applicant Bank sanctioned the following mentioned Term Loan and MKCC loan facilities to defendant No. 1.

¶25

Name of the facility	Amount	Date of sanction
Term Loan	Rs.40,00,000/-	26.05.2014
Mahabank Kisan Credit Card(MKCC)	Rs.9,75,000/-	18.05.2015
Mahabank Kisan Credit Card(MKCC)	Rs.7,50,000/-	31.08.2016

¶26

Defendant Nos.2 and 3 stood guarantors for the repayment of Term loan availed by defendant No.1. So also, defendant Nos.4 and 5 stood guarantors for the repayment of MKCC loan facilities availed by defendant No.1.

¶27

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank. Further, defendant No.1 also executed deed of mortgage dated 27.05.2014 of Gat No. 130 (P) admeasuring 40R and Gat No. 16(P) admeasuring 1H 60R situated at village Shindewadi, Taluka Indapur, District Pune, in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶28

Further, the defendants have also executed Balance and

(OA No. 394/2023)

Page 3 of 7

Sanap

Security Confirmation Letters on 20.04.2017, 01.07.2019, 27.08.2019 and 17.04.2020 in favour of the applicant Bank and thereby confirmed the outstanding amounts.

¶33

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. Therefore, on 28.09.2020, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendants. Despite service of Notice, the defendants failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶34

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).

¶35

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Shrikant Rao, Chief 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-32 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

(OA No. 394/2023)

Page 4 of 7

Sanap

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

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

The applicant Bank has claimed Penal Interest of Rs.1,00,305/for Term Loan account, Rs.37,604/- and Rs.15,298/- each for MKCC loan accounts, which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Term Loan of Rs.64,91,565/- is reduced to Rs.63,91,260/- and the total claim amount of MKCC Loan of Rs.31,31,879/- is reduced to Rs.30,78,977/-.

¶43

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest for Term Loan @13.65% per annum and for MKCC accounts @14.65% per annum. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the

(OA No. 394/2023)

Page 5 of 7

Sanap

opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶48

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(A) Original Application No. 394/2023 is allowed with proportionate costs.

¶51

(B) Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.63,91,260/(Rs. Sixty Three Lakhs Ninety One Thousand Two Hundred Sixty only) towards Term Loan along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 04.02.2021 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶52

(C) Defendant Nos. 1, 4 and 5 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.30,78,977/- (Rs. Thirty Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Seven only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 04.02.2021 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in

(OA No. 394/2023)

Page 6 of 7

Sanap

this operative order.

¶57

(D) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage of Gat No. 130(P) admeasuring 40R and Gat No. 16(P) admeasuring 1H 60R situated at village Shindewadi, Taluka Indapur, District Pune, more particularly described in the Para No. 5.7 and 5.17 of the Original Application.

¶58

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

¶59

(F) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶60

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

¶61

Place : Pune Date : 05.02.2025

¶62

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

¶63

(OA No. 394/2023)

¶64

Page 7 of 7

¶65

Sanap

Bank of Maharashtra v. Pushpa Bansode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Pushpa Bansode

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 India versus Neurostar Hospital Private Limited

Bank of India versus Sangramsinh

Encore Assets Reconstruction Company Private Limited versus Ranjit Jadhav

Indian Overseas Bank versus Nilesh Ransingh

Union Bank of India versus Navnath

Federal Bank versus Bharat Shedbale