Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Gaensh Services-Prop Mr Hrudaynath Shamrao Parte

DRT17 Feb 2025OA/818/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery. The court directed the defendant to pay the outstanding dues plus future interest at 9% per annum, securing the amount against mortgaged properties and issuing a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the Original Application. Directed defendant to pay Rs.4,03,22,664 with future interest at 9% p.a. from 28.09.2018. Money secured by mortgage on Non-Agricultural plots. Recovery Certificate is

State Bank of India versus M/S Gaensh Services-Prop Mr… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on : 28.09.2018 Registered on : 07.05.2022 Decided on : 17.02.2025 Duration : Y M D 06 04 19

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 818/2022.

¶3

State Bank of India,

¶4

A Body Corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and having its Head Office at Mumbai and one of its branch office at - Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Pune 411042.

¶5

.. Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s. Ganesh Service, Through Proprieter, Mr. Hrudaynath Shamrao Parte, Age 37 years, Occ. Business, R/o – 75A, Varchi Ali, Yeveteshwar 415 002, Taluka and District Satara.

¶8

.. Defendant

¶9

APPEARANCES

¶10

For Applicant	Advocate Balasaheb Jadhav.
For Defendant	Exparte.

¶11

Total Claim Amount – Rs.4,03,22,663=63

(OA No. 818/2022)

Page 1 of 5

Sanap

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 17^th February, 2025)

¶16

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.4,03,22,663=63 by rounding Rs.4,03,22,664/together with future interest @12.70% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendant.

¶17

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶18

The defendant is sole proprietary concern and Mr. Hridaynath Parte is the sole proprietor engaged in business of job work. As per the loan application of the defendant, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Cash Credit Limit of Rs.20,00,000/- to the defendant vide Sanction Letter dated 26.04.2012.

¶19

Further, as per request of the defendant, the applicant Bank enhanced the Cash Credit Limit of Rs.20,00,000/to Rs.250,00,000/- and letter of Credit facility of Rs.50,00,000/- for his business on 23.01.206.

¶20

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant executed necessary loan and security documents along with deed of hypothecation of stock, raw material, finished goods, socks, packing material and equitable mortgage of Non Agricultural Plot Nos. 1, 16, 23 to 42 out of Gat No. 136/B situated at Vathar Station, Taluka Koregaon, District Satara, in

(OA No. 818/2022)

Page 2 of 5

Sanap

favour of the applicant Bank.

¶25

The applicant Bank contended that the defendant committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Hence, on 26.01.2017, the applicant Bank has classified the account of the defendant as Non Performing Asset in accordance with guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Therefore, on 01.09.2018, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendant. Despite service of Notice, the defendant failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶26

The defendant failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 05.02.2025 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶27

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of K. Srinivasa Rao, Chief Manager and Principal Officers of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1 to AW-9 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶28

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

¶29

Since the defendant failed to appear and contest the application, I

(OA No. 818/2022)

Page 3 of 5

Sanap

find no reason to disbelieve evidence of the applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for reliefs as claimed.

¶34

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @12.70% 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.

¶35

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶36

ORDER

¶37

(A) Original Application No. 818/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶38

(B) The defendant shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.4,03,22,664/- (Rupees Four Crore Three Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Four only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 28.09.2018 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶39

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage of Non Agricultural Plot Nos. 1, 16, 23 to 42 out of Gat No. 136/B situated at Vathar Station, Taluka Koregaon, District Satara, more particularly described in the Para No. 5.11 of the

(OA No. 818/2022)

Page 4 of 5

Sanap

Original Application.

¶44

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

¶45

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶46

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

¶47

Sd/(Dilip G Murumkar) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 17.02.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶48

(OA No. 818/2022)

¶49

Page 5 of 5

¶50

Sanap

State Bank of India v. M/S Gaensh Services-Prop Mr Hrudaynath Shamrao Parte

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Gaensh Services-Prop Mr Hrudaynath Shamrao Parte

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S Accutech Engineering Prop Mr. Divyesh Vilas Bauskar

Canara Bank versus Mr. Neelesh Damodar Phuge

Punjab National Bank versus Ayaan Welness LLP

Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) versus M/S. Shree Samrarth Engineering Works Prop. Mr. Sanket Gokul Dumbre

Bank of India versus Ajay Thengil

Federal Bank versus Bhauso