Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Naseer Sheikh Nakhawa

DRT25 Feb 2025OA/97/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Upon an ex-parte Original Application by Bank of Maharashtra for recovery of over Rs.63 lakhs from borrowers and guarantors, the tribunal allowed the application. It adjusted penal interest, reduced future interest to 9% p.a., and granted relief against the pledged immovable property without ordering recovery of hypothecated agricultural assets due to lack of details.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs.60,77,450 with future interest @ 9% p.a. (Simple); creation of Mortgage on specific immovable property; Entitlement to sell mortgaged property; Issue Recovery Certificate.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Naseer Sheikh Nakhawa — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 08.12.2022 Registered on: 24.01.2023 Decided on: 25.02.2025 Duration: Y M D 02 02 17

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.97/2023.

¶3

Bank of Maharashtra ,

¶4

A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisitions & Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 having its Head Office at “Lokmangal” 1501, Shivajinagar, Pune-5 and Branch amongst other places at Desai Building, Bazar Peth, Pawas, District Ratnagiri -415 616.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 Mr. Naseer Sheikh Mohammad Nakhawa Age Adult, Occ.-Agriculture,

¶8

Mr. Sheikh Mohammad Vajir Nakhawa Age Adult, Occ.-Agriculture,

¶9

3 Mr. Irfan Abu Hawaldar

¶10

Age Adult, Occ.-Agriculture,

¶11

4 Mr. Shahubuddin Ibrahim Mukadam Age Adult, Occ.-Agriculture, All R/at & Post Pawas, Taluka & District Ratnagiri-415 616

¶12

… Defendants

¶13

APPEARANCES

¶14

For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶15

Advocate Mr. R.B.Ganbote Ex-parte.

¶16

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs.63,53,697/-

(OA No.97/2023)

Page 1 of 6

[ANIL]

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 25^th February, 2025)

¶22

The Applicant Bank has filed present application for recovery of aggregate sum of Rs.63,53,697/- [ i.e.Rs.32,05,564/- towards MKCC Account and Rs.31,48,133/- towards MKCC Account ] with future interest @13.95% p.a.; with monthly rest from the date of filing the Original Application i.e.08.12.2022 and or repayment/ realization from the defendants.

¶23

2. Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶24

Defendant Nos.1 to 4 approached Applicant Bank for MKCC Facility of Rs.20,00,000/- which was sanctioned by the Applicant Bank. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 requested Applicant Bank to accept them as Guarantors for MKCC.

¶25

Defendants again approached to Applicant Bank and requested for grant MKCC of Rs.15,00,000/-, which was also sanctioned by the Applicant Bank. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the guarantors for the said facility to be availed by Defendant No.1 from the Applicant Bank.

¶26

In order to secure the aforesaid MKCC Facilities, the defendants have executed loan and security documents as set out in Para Nos.5.5 & 5.12 of Original Application, in favor of the Applicant Bank.

¶27

Defendant No.1 & 2 have executed Hypothecation Agreement in favour of Applicant Bank and thereby hypothecated all the agricultural facilities.

(OA No.97/2023)

Page 2 of 6

[ANIL]

In addition to this, Defendants have created Declarative Mortgage on 24.07.2012 of the below mentioned property for securing MKCC, sanctioned to the Defendants i.e. all those piece and parcels of Survey No.1081 admeasuring 00 Hector 38 Are, Survey No.1082 admeasuring 00 Hector 33 Are, Survey No.1083 admeasuring 00 Hector 73 Are, Survey No.1086 admeasuring 00 Hector 24 Are, Survey No.1088 admeasuring 00 Hector 31 Are, Survey No.1077 admeasuring 00 Hector 66 Are, Survey No.32/2E admeasuring 00 Hector 25 Are and Survey No.32/2A admeasuring 00 Hector 10.9 Are at village Nakhare, Taluka Ratnagiri, within the limits of Nakhare Grampanchayat and also within the limits of Registration District Ratnagiri, Sub Registration District Ratnagiri, District Ratnagiri, more particularly mentioned in Para No.5.7 of the Main Application.

¶32

Defendants have also executed separate balance and Security Confirmation Letters on 26.06.2015, 03.09.2018, 01.09.2021, 12.06.2019 and 24.06.2022 in favour of the applicant bank and confirmed the balance in the MKCC Accounts of Defendant No.1 and 2 with the applicant Bank.

¶33

The Applicant Bank contended that defendants failed and neglected to repay the amounts outstanding at the foot of the aforesaid accounts, the Applicant Bank called upon defendants to pay the outstanding amount. The Accounts of the Defendants became NPA as per Reserve Bank of India norms.

¶34

Hence, this application is filed.

(OA No.97/2023)

Page 3 of 6

[ANIL]

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).

¶39

The Applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Gaurav Yashwant Deshpande and has produced on record the original Loan Transaction documents at Exhibits.AW-1 to AW-18, which corroborates the case of the Applicant Bank.

¶40

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

¶41

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.

¶42

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.

¶43

The applicant bank has claimed penal interest of Rs.2,76,247/- for both MKCC Accounts, which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.63,53,697/- is reduced to Rs.60,77,450 /-.

(OA No.97/2023)

Page 4 of 6

[ANIL]

The Applicant Bank has claimed future interest @13.95% p.a. for MKCC Loan Accounts. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that for both MKCC Facilities, if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶48

12 Hence, I pass the following order:-

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(A) Original Application No.97/2023 is allowed with costs.

¶51

(B) Defendant Nos.1 to 4 either jointly or severally shall pay sum of Rs.60,77,450 /- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Four Hundred Fifty only) towards MKCC Accounts with future interest @ 9% per annum (Simple) with monthly rests from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e.08.12.2022 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order, to the Applicant Bank.

¶52

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by creating Mortgage regarding immovable property i.e.all those piece and parcels of Survey No.1081 admeasuring 00 Hector 38 Are, Survey No.1082 admeasuring 00 Hector 33 Are, Survey No.1083 admeasuring 00 Hector 73 Are, Survey No.1086 admeasuring 00 Hector 24 Are, Survey No.1088 admeasuring 00 Hector 31 Are, Survey No.1077 admeasuring 00 Hector 66 Are, Survey No.32/2E admeasuring 00 Hector 25 Are and Survey No.32/2A admeasuring 00 Hector 10.9 Are at village Nakhare, Taluka Ratnagiri, within the limits of Nakhare Grampanchayat and also within the limits of Registration District Ratnagiri, Sub Registration District Ratnagiri, District Ratnagiri, more particularly mentioned in Para No.5.7 of the Main Application.

(OA No.97/2023)

Page 5 of 6

[ANIL]

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

¶57

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶58

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

¶59

Place : Pune Date: 25.02.2025

¶60

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

¶61

(OA No.97/2023)

¶62

Page 6 of 6

¶63

[ANIL]

Bank of Maharashtra v. Naseer Sheikh Nakhawa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Naseer Sheikh Nakhawa

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

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

Union Bank of India versus Pratap Construction Prop. Pratap Balaji Nikam

Canara Bank versus Ranjit

Federal Bank versus Mira Sagvekar

Idbi Bank versus Shiraj

Bank of Maharashtra versus Satish