Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Satish

DRT27 Feb 2025OA/676/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune, heard an application by Bank of Maharashtra for recovery of dues amounting to Rs.22,89,116/- from borrowers and guarantors. The defendants appeared ex-parte. The Tribunal allowed the application, directed payment of reduced principal amounts with future interest at 9% (Term Loan) and 7% (MKCC), and ordered sale of mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs.18,59,898/- with 9% interest and Rs.4,29,218/- with 7% interest; right to sell mortgaged property; recovery certificate issued.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Satish — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on : 31.01.2022 Registered on : 19.07.2022 Decided on : 27.02.2025 Duration : Y M D 03 00 27

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 676/2022.

¶3

Bank of Maharashtra, A Banking Company Incorporated under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its registered office at “Lokmangal”, 1501, Shivajinagar, Pune – 5 and branch office at – Supa, Taluka Baramati, District Pune.

¶4

.. Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1 Mr. Satish Vishwanath Dhame, Age 53 years, Occ. – Agriculture, R/at : At Post Naroli, Taluka Baramati, District Pune 412 204.

¶7

2 Mr. Sagar Vitthal Pansare, Age 34 years, Occ. – Agriculture, R/at : At Post Naroli, Taluka Baramati, District Pune 412 204.

(OA No. 676/2022)

Page 1 of 7

Sanap

3 Mr. Vijay Madhukar Pansare, Age 35 years, Occ. – Agriculture, R/at : At Post Naroli, Taluka Baramati, District Pune 412 204.

¶12

4 Mr. Bharat Gulab Dhame, Age 61 years, Occ. – Agriculture, R/at : At Post Naroli, Taluka Baramati, District Pune 412 204.

¶13

5 Mr. Sambhaji Namdeo Konde, Age 62 years, Occ. – Agriculture, R/at : At Post Naroli, Taluka Baramati, District Pune 412 204. .. Defendants

¶14

APPEARANCES

¶15

For Applicant Advocate Ashok Tamboli. For Defendants Ex parte.

¶16

Total Claim Amount – Rs.22,89,116/-

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

(Delivered on 27^th February, 2025)

¶19

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.22,89,116/- together with future interest @10.95% per annum for Term Loan and @7% per annum for MKCC facility 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. 676/2022)

Page 2 of 7

Sanap

As per the loan application dated 01.03.2016 of defendant No.1, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Term Loan of Rs.16,00,000/- to defendant No.1 vide Sanction Letter dated 13.04.2016. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 stood guarantors for the repayment of loan availed by defendant No.1.

¶25

Again as per the loan application dated 23.10.2016 of defendant No.1, the applicant Bank sanctioned the MKCC Facility of Rs.4,00,000/- to defendant No.1 vide Sanction Letter dated 25.10.2016. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 stood guarantors for the repayment of loan availed by defendant No.1.

¶26

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank. Further, defendant No.1 has also executed deed of mortgage of land Gat No.38 admeasuring 1H and Gat No. 202 admeasuring 89R situated at village Naroli, Taluka Baramati, District Pune, in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶27

Thereafter, the defendants have also executed Balance and Security Confirmation Letters dated 15.04.2019 and

(OA No. 676/2022)

Page 3 of 7

Sanap

24.10.2019 in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶32

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Hence, on 30.09.2021, 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 13.12.2021, 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.

¶33

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 06.02.2025 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶35

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Jackson Kharbat, Branch Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1 to AW-30 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

(OA No. 676/2022)

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 future interest @10.95% per annum for Term Loan and @7% per annum for MKCC facility. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple) for Term Loan and @7% per annum (simple) for MKCC facility, it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶42

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(A) Original Application No. 676/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶45

(B) Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.18,59,898/(Rs. Eighteen Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Eight only) towards Term Loan along with future interest @9% per annum from the

(OA No. 676/2022)

Page 5 of 7

Sanap

date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 31.01.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶50

(C) Defendant Nos. 1, 4 and 5 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.4,29,218/- (Rs. Four Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Two Hundred Eighteen only) towards MKCC facility along with future interest @7% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 31.01.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶51

(D) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage of land Gat No.38 admeasuring 1H and Gat No. 202 admeasuring 89R situated at village Naroli, Taluka Baramati, District Pune, more particularly described in the Para No. 5.6 and 5.8 of the Original Application.

¶52

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

¶53

(F) Issue Recovery Certificate.

(OA No. 676/2022)

Page 6 of 7

Sanap

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

¶58

Place : Pune Date : 27.02.2025

¶59

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

¶60

(OA No. 676/2022)

¶61

Page 7 of 7

¶62

Sanap

Bank of Maharashtra v. Satish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Satish

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 Mira Sagvekar

Bank of Maharashtra versus Naseer Sheikh Nakhawa

Punjab National Bank versus Amantra Wellness and Hospitality Opc Pvt. Ltd.

Idbi Bank versus Shiraj

Bank of India versus Rohidas Banagar

Bank of India versus Padmakar Vishwanath Bhange