Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. M/S. Darshana Transport Prop. Mrs. Surekha Manoj Lunkad

DRT2 Aug 2025OA/782/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Punjab National Bank's application for recovery of dues against borrowers who defaulted on a term loan secured by immovable property. The court reduced the principal claim by disallowing penal interest, recommended a lower future interest rate, and granted a right to sell the mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Directing payment of Rs. 2,49,06,629/- with future interest at 9% p.a.; granting right to sell mortgaged property to recover dues; directing issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Punjab National Bank versus M/S. Darshana Transport Prop. Mrs… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 28.12.2019 Registered on: 29.08.2022 Decided on: 02.08.2025 Duration: Y M D 05 07 04

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.782/2022.

¶3

Punjab National Bank ,

¶4

A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisitions & Transfer of Undertakings) Act of 1970 having its Registered Office at Plot No.4, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075 and amongst others one of its branch at Punjab National Bank, 95-a, Vijay Apartment, Hari Sadan, Prabhat Road, Deccan Gymkhana, Pune-411 004.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Proprietor – Darshana Transport, Smt. Aashalata Sopan Zagade

¶8

2. Mr. Manoj Sureshchand Lunkad Age 44 years, Occ.:- Business, R/at – B-402, Hyde Park, Tower-B, Market Yard, Pune- 411 037.

¶9

…Defendants

¶10

APPEARANCES

¶11

For the Applicant Advocate Yogesh R. Hirve For the Defendants Ex-parte

¶12

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.2,49,37,121.26Ps.

(OA No.782/2022)

Page 1 of 6

[ANIL]

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 2^nd August, 2025)

¶18

The Applicant Bank has filed present application for recovery of Rs.2,49,37,121.26Ps with future interest @11.75% p.a. with monthly rests with penal interest @2% p.a. towards Term Loan Account No.1394009300011407 from the date of filing of Original Application till repayment /realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶19

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶20

The Applicant Bank states that Defendant No.1 approached the applicant bank and requested for financial assistance by way of Overdraft Limit. Defendant No.2 is the guarantor and Mortgagor in his personal capacity.

¶21

Applicant Bank vide its Sanction Letter dated 18.03.2016, granted and sanctioned Over Draft Limit against Mortgage of immovable property of Rs.3,00,00,000/- for the purpose of business requirements, on certain terms and conditions.

¶22

In order to secure the aforesaid Loan facilities, defendant No.1 executed loan and security documents as set out in Para Nos.5.6 of the Original Application, in favor of the Applicant Bank.

¶23

Defendant No.1 and 2 also agreed to create security by way of mortgage of immovable property i.e. all that piece and parcel of property i.e. Flat No.402, Fourth floor, admeasuring carpet area 162.40 sq. mtrs. i.e.1748 sq.ft. built up area 202.99 sq. mtrs. i.e. 2185

(OA No.782/2022)

Page 2 of 6

[ANIL]

sq. ft., Wing No.B, along with exclusive right to use adjacent terrace and along with open car parking space bearing No.364 admeasuring 08 sq.mtrs. in the scheme known as Hyde Park Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. situated at on the land bearing Survey No.587, Hissa No.A & B, corresponding CTS No.3225 at village Bibvewadi, Taluka Haveli, District Pune, within the local limits of Pune Municipal Corporation and within registration district of Pune Sub Registrar Haveli Nos.1 to 27, more particularly described in Schedule-I of the Original Application.

¶28

Defendant No.1 and 2 deposited original documents with the applicant bank towards creation of mortgage by way of deposit of title deeds i.e. Agreement dated 23.07.2007 registered at the office of Sub Registrar Haveli No.12 at Sr.No.6472/2007 along with Index-II and Registration Receipt.

¶29

Applicant Bank contended that defendant No.1 was irregular in payment of the EMI and made default in repayment of the said loan. Applicant Bank time and again requested Defendant No.1 to repay the said loan as per the agreed schedule but defendant No.1 deliberately and knowingly failed to repay as agreed in spite of repeated requests by the applicant bank. Hence, the account of defendant No.1 with the applicant Bank has become NonPerforming Asset on 30.06.2019 in accordance with the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India.

¶30

Therefore, the applicant bank issued demand/recall notice dated 12.10.2019 through their advocate Mr. Yogesh R. Hirve to the

(OA No.782/2022)

Page 3 of 6

[ANIL]

defendant by virtue of which the defendant was called upon to pay total outstanding amount of Rs.2,37,37,480/- within 8 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. However, in spite of receipt of notice, the defendants not paid the dues of the applicant bank.

¶35

Hence, this application is filed.

¶36

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per order dated 11.04.2025 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶37

The Applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Sujeet Kumar Jha, Chief Manager and has produced on record the Loan Transaction documents at Exhibits.AW-1 to AW-21, which corroborates the case of the Applicant Bank.

¶38

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

¶39

Since the defendants 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.

¶40

The applicant bank has claimed penal interest of Rs.17,122/- and other law charges + expenses of Rs.13,370/-, which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.2,49,37,121.26 is reduced to Rs.2,49,06,629/-.

(OA No.782/2022)

Page 4 of 6

[ANIL]

Applicant Bank has claimed future interest @11.75% per annum with monthly rests. 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.

¶45

Hence, I pass the following order:-

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(A) Original Application No.782/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶48

(B) Defendant Nos.1&2 either jointly or severally shall pay sum of Rs.2,49,06,629/- (Rupees Two Crore Fourty Nine Lakh Six Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Nine only] with future interest @9% p.a. (Simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 18.12.2019 till payment/ realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order, to the applicant bank.

¶49

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by creation of Deed of Mortgage regarding immovable property i.e. Flat No.402, Fourth floor, admeasuring carpet area 162.40 sq. mtrs. i.e.1748 sq.ft. built up area 202.99 sq. mtrs. i.e. 2185 sq. ft., Wing No.B, along with exclusive right to use adjacent terrace and along with open car parking space bearing No.364 admeasuring 08 sq.mtrs. in the scheme known as Hyde Park Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. situated at on the land bearing Survey No.587, Hissa No.A & B, corresponding CTS No.3225 at village Bibvewadi, Taluka Haveli, District Pune, within the local limits of Pune Municipal Corporation and within registration district of Pune Sub Registrar Haveli Nos.1 to 27, more particularly described in Schedule-I of the Original Application.

(OA No.782/2022)

Page 5 of 6

[ANIL]

(D) Applicant Bank is entitled to Sell the mortgaged property to recover the dues.

¶54

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶55

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

¶56

Sd/Place : Pune (Dilip G. Murumkar) Date: 02.08.2025 Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune

¶57

(OA No.782/2022)

¶58

Page 6 of 6

¶59

[ANIL]

Punjab National Bank v. M/S. Darshana Transport Prop. Mrs. Surekha Manoj Lunkad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. M/S. Darshana Transport Prop. Mrs. Surekha Manoj Lunkad

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 Rekhabai Fand

Federal Bank versus Shivaji

Federal Bank versus Sunil Goilkar

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sambhaji

Punjab National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus M/S. Jagtap Press Components Prop. Mr. Yogesh Kakasaheb Jagtap

Bank of India versus Tushar Nathuram Mahadik, Prop of M/S. Ved Motors