Allowed

Canara Bank v. Sudam Jadhav

DRT3 Apr 2025OA/919/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune, allowed an application by Canara Bank for recovery of Rs.13,95,247/- against defendants in default of a term loan. The order was passed ex-parte after defendants failed to appear. The tribunal granted future interest at 9% per annum instead of the claimed 13.45% and ordered execution of a mortgage on agri-land.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.13,95,247/- secured by mortgage on land, plus future interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing the application.

Canara Bank versus Sudam Jadhav — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on .. 05.07.2019 Registered on .. 14.10.2022 Decided on .. 03.04.2025 Duration .. Y—M—D 05--08--28

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 919/2022.

¶3

Canara Bank,

¶4

A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 having its head office at 112 JC Road, Bangalore, State of Karnataka and branch office at 143/1, Main Chowk, Hinjwadi, Pune 411 057.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 Shri Sudam Baban Jadhav, Age Adult, Occ. Agriculture, R/at – At and Post Nere, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune 411 057.

¶8

2 Shri Sahebrao Sudam Jadhav, Age Adult, Occ. Agriculture, R/at – At and Post Nere, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune 411 057.

¶9

3 Shri Sambhaji Sudam Jadhav, Age Adult, Occ. Agriculture, R/at – At and Post Nere, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune 411 057.

¶10

… Defendants

¶11

Sanap ( OA No. 919/2022 ) 1 of 5

¶12

:- Appearances For Applicant For Defendants

¶13

Advocate R.B. Ganbote. Ex parte.

¶14

Total Claim Amount – Rs.13,95,247/-

¶15

JUDGEMNT

¶16

(Delivered on 03^rd April, 2025)

¶17

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.13,95,247/- together with future interest @13.45% 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 of defendant Nos.1 to 3, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Term loan facility of Rs.10,00,000/- to the defendants for raising Carnation Flowers under Poly House vide Sanction Letter dated 17.06.2008.

¶20

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank. The defendants have also executed deed of mortgage on 26.06.2008 of Survey/Gat No. 131/3 (Part) admeasuring 74R at village Nere, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune, in favour of the applicant Bank. The defendants have also

¶21

Sanap ( OA No. 919/2022 ) 2 of 5

¶22

executed Acknowledgment of Debt and Security on 02.07.2011, 10.03.2014 and 15.02.2017 and thereby confirmed the balance outstanding in loan account.

¶23

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. In spite of personal visits and telephonic demand of repayment of loan amount, the defendants failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank.

¶24

Hence, this application is filed.

¶25

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 19.02.2025 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶26

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Miss Shweta Bhimashankar Chadchan, Manager and Principal Officer of the applicant Bank and produced on record original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1 to AW-12 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶27

Sanap ( OA No. 919/2022 ) 3 of 5

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @13.45% 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.

¶32

Hence, I pass the following order.

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

A} Original Application No. 919/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶35

B} Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.13,95,247/(Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand Two

¶36

Sanap ( OA No. 919/2022 ) 4 of 5

¶37

Hundred Forty Seven only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 05.07.2019 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶38

C} The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage of Survey/Gat No. 131/3 (Part) admeasuring 74R assessed at Rs.2.62 Ps. at village Nere, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune, more particularly described in the Para No. 5.7 of the Original Application.

¶39

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

¶40

E} Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶41

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

¶42

Sd/( Dilip G. Murumkar ) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 03.04.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶43

Sanap ( OA No. 919/2022 ) 5 of 5

Canara Bank v. Sudam Jadhav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Sudam Jadhav

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 Maharashtra versus Ms Yogiraj Industries Prop Shri. Ravindra Mohan Bhandare

Punjab National Bank versus Amantra Lounge Pvt. limited

State Bank of India versus Shanty

Uco Bank versus Dnyandev Mhaske

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/s. LifeCare Multispeciality Hospital

Federal Bank versus Sunita Jagtap