BANK OF BARODA (DENA BANK) vs SANGEETA RAJARAM DHAGE on 2 January 2024

**JUDGMENT**

1. 1. The case of the Applicant Bank is that the Defendant No.1 approached the Applicant Bank vide loan Application dt.18.08.2007 Exh.11 for grant of Term Loan of Rs.19,44,000/- for Angle Drip, Pipeline and Well. The loan was sanctioned vide Sanction Letter dt.06.09.2007 Exh.12.

2. 2. To secure the above Term Loan of Rs.19,44,000/-, the Defendant No.1 executed Hypothecation Agreement for Agricultural Loan dt.06.09.2007 Exh.13, Letter of General Lien and Set off dt.06.09.2007 Exh.14. The Defendant No.2 stood Guarantor and executed Letter of Guarantee dt.06.09.2007 Exh.15 and General Letter of Lien and Set Off dt.06.09.2007 Exh.16.

3. 3. The Defendant No.1 again approached the Applicant Bank vide Loan Application dt.16.08.2008 Exh.17 for grant of

DKCC Facility of Rs.6,35,000/- . The loan was sanctioned vide Sanction Letter dt.20.08.2008 Exh.18.

1. 4. To secure the DKCC Facility of Rs.6,35,000/-, the Defendant No.1 executed Hypothecation Agreement dt.20.08.2008 Exh.19, Demand Promissory Note dt.20.08.2008 Exh.20, Letter of General Lien and Set Off dt.20.08.2008 Exh.21 and Letter of Continuity dt.20.08.2008 Exh.22. The Defendant No.2 stood Guarantor and executed Letter of Guarantee dt.20.08.2008 Exh.23 and Letter of General Lien and Set Off dt.20.08.2008 Exh.24.

2. 5. Also, to secure above credit facilities, the Defendant No.1 executed Mortgage Deed dt.29.08.2007 Exh.26, whereby, they mortgaged the property i.e. All that piece and parcel of land bearing Survey No.104 situated at Village Vani (Khurd), Taluka Dindori, District Nashik with the Applicant Bank.

3. 6. The Defendant No.1 again requested the Applicant Bank for Restructuring/Rephasing the amounts then outstanding under the said Term Loan and DKCC Facility by making the said amount repayable in 8/5 yearly installments of Rs.23,46,792/- and Rs.7,42,281/- respectively plus interest. The request of Defendant No.1

was granted by the Applicant Bank vide Rephased Sanction Letter dt.30.03.2010 Exh.27 and to secure the restructuring, the Defendant No.1 executed Rephased Agreement dt.30.03.2010 Exh.28.

1. 7. The Defendant No.1 again requested the Applicant Bank for Restructuring/Rephasing the amounts then outstanding under the said Term Loan and 3 yearly installments of Rs.2,96,124/- plus interest. The request of Defendant No.1 was granted by the Applicant Bank vide Rephased Sanction Letter dt.21.06.2013 Exh.29 and to secure the restructuring, the Defendant No.1 executed Rephased Agreement dt.21.06.2013 Exh.30.

2. 8. The Defendant No.1 also executed Letters of Acknowledgement of Debts and Securities dt.03.02.2013 and dt.12.08.2013 Exh.31.

3. 9. The Applicant Bank has further submitted that the Defendants committed breach of terms and conditions of sanction and security documents and failed to maintain financial discipline of the Bank.

4. 10. Recall notice was issued through the advocate of the Bank to the Defendants on 15.12.2014 Exh.32 calling upon

Akun 02.01.2024

Defendants to pay and clear the dues of the Applicant Bank under the said loans but to no effect, hence, this Original Application for recovery of Rs.55,20,374/- alongwith interest has been filed.

1. 11. The notice of this Original Application was issued to Defendants but they failed to appear despite service and hence, they were proceeded against ex-parte.

2. 12. To prove his case, the Applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of Mr. Jaswanthlal P. Suthar, Chief Manager of Applicant Bank and he has supported the case of the Applicant Bank in all material particulars and he has also proved the documents executed between the parties.

3. 13. The Applicant Bank has placed on record Statements of Account Exh.33, Exh.34 and Exh.35 which corroborates the version of Mr. Jaswanthlal P. Suthar of Applicant Bank.

4. 14. The evidence so brought on record by the Applicant Bank goes un-rebutted, unchallenged and unopposed and there is no reason to disbelieve the version of Applicant Bank.

5. 15. In view of evidence brought on record, this Tribunal finds that the Defendant No.1 availed the loan and he hypothecated the Agricultural Implements and mortgaged the property i.e. All that piece and parcel of land bearing Survey No.104 situated at Village Vani (Khurd), Taluka Dindori, District Nashik with the Applicant Bank and Defendant No.2 stood Guarantors but Defendant No.1 and 2 failed to repay the outstanding loan amount despite repeated requests and Recall Notice dt.15.12.2014 was sent by the Bank through Advocate but still the Defendants failed to repay the outstanding loan amount. Hence, Applicant Bank is entitled to recover Rs.55,20,374/- alongwith further interest from the date of filing of application till realization. Defendant No.1 and 2 are held jointly and severally liable to pay this amount of Rs.34,41,326/- alongwith interest pendente lite and future interest at rate of 11.25% p.a. under Term Loan, Rs.10,07,496/- alongwith interest pendente lite and future interest at rate of 11.5% p.a. under DKCC Facility and Rs.10,71,552/- alongwith interest pendente lite and future interest at rate of 11.25% p.a. under Rephased/Restructured account. Thus, Applicant Bank has been able to prove his case by preponderance of probabilities. Transfer Original Application No.1412 of 2016 is allowed accordingly.

16. As per the provision of Section 19(20) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 which is analogous to Section 34 of CPC, on filing of the suit/claim, the contract between the parties comes to an end and the Court/Tribunal has a discretion to award interest depending upon the circumstances of each case. Same principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra & Others Taking Stock of all the circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the ends of justice would meet if the Applicant Bank is awarded interest pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 11.25% p.a. 11.5% p.a. and 11.25% p.a. under Term Loan, DKCC Facility and Rephased/Restructured account respectively from the date of filing of Original Application till final recovery is made from Defendants.

ORDER

O.A stands allowed with cost and the Defendant No.1 and 2 are held jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank within two months a sum of Rs.34,41,326/- together with interest pendentelite and future interest @11.25% per annum, Rs.10,07,496/- together with interest pendente lite and future interest @11.5% per annum and Rs.10,71,552/- together with interest pendente lite and future interest @11.25% per annum from the date of filing of this O.A. till the date of realization; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated agricultural implements and mortgaged property i.e. All that piece and parcel of land bearing Survey No.104 situated at Village Vani (Khurd), Taluka Dindori, District Nashik and in case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of the movable and immovable properties of the Defendants.

17. Defendant No.1 and 2 are directed to declare, on oath, to the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal - III, Mumbai, both moveable and immovable assets of them for the purpose of attachment and sale for realizing the shortfall.

18. Let a Recovery Certificate be issued with memo of cost immediately u/s 19(22) of The Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 together with the details of the

Chun 02.01.2024

properties, if any, by fixing 04.03.2024 before Learned R.O., DRT - III, Vashi, Navi Mumbai.

19. The Defendant No.1 and 2 are restrained from depleting, transferring, encumbering, alienating or in any way dealing with their properties/assets without first paying the claim of the Applicant Bank.

20. Copies of this judgment be sent to the parties free of cost and file be consigned to record room.

Give under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on this date : 02.01.2024.

Dictated on 02.01.2024

(ARUN KUMAR SINGAL) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-III, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI

Typed By - Mrs. Monika Pawar, Stenographer.

<table border="1"><tr><td data-bbox="94 118 221 161">29.11.2023</td><td data-bbox="221 118 778 161"><u>Roznama-MDRT-III</u><br/><u>S.A. No. 496 of 2023</u></td><td data-bbox="778 118 918 161">Next date</td></tr><tr><td data-bbox="94 161 221 857"></td><td data-bbox="221 161 778 857"><p>Advocate Mr. Puneet Gogad proxy counsel for Advocate Ms. Preeti Barde for the Applicant.</p><p>Advocate Mr. T,N Tripathi a/w Advocate Ms. Saumya Tripathi for the Respondent.</p><p>Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is having a good case on merit. However, to protect the property the Applicant is ready to deposit some installment and therefore the Respondent may be restrained from taking the possession which is fixed for today.</p><p>On the other side of the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent objected on the present S.A. and submits that there is no merit in the present S.A. and he also submits that in case the Applicant deposits then the Applicant may be directed to deposit 50% of the total dues.</p><p>Considering the contentions made by the parties and looking to the fact that the property in question is a single dwelt unit of the Applicant where the Applicant is residing with his family and total dues as per the Applicant are only Rs.16Lakhs,</p></td><td data-bbox="778 161 918 857"></td></tr></table>