UNION BANK OF INDIA vs MAKARAD HANUMANTRAO on 25 September 2019

Union Bank of India,

a body corporate under the Banking Companies (Acquisitions and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1

having its Central Office at Union Bank Bhavan, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Mumbai - 400 021 and Gangapur Road Branch, Shri Ganesh A

Navashya Ganpati Mandir, Anandwalli

Road, Nashik - 422013 through its

1,. Mr. Makarand Hanumantrao

House No.493, Gharpure

Sawata Mali

Nashik - 422001

2. Mr. Gaurav

House No.

Sa

N

c.

Gupt4

Apartment,

Hospital, Peth Road, Panchawati,

Ej^l^'2-+

Presented on z 06/07 /20L5

Registered on : 19/05/2A16

Transferred on : 03fL0/20L6

Decided on z 25/09/2019

Duration : 06(D)/0a(MY03(Y)

Applicant

Defendant No. 1

Defendant No. 2

Defendant No. 3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - III AT MUMBAI

DATED THIS 25thDAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019

PRESENT : SHRI. T S ASOKRAI

PRESIDING OFFICER

T O A No. 1669 of 2016

)

)

)

Nashik

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Present

Mr. Vilas D Deshmane, Advocate, Counsel for Applicant Bank Defendants remained ex-parte This Original Application (OA) is filed by Applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 ("RDDB Act")

(since changed to "Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993") against the I

1h,,

'.:a::t..

Order TOA 1669 of 2016 (Ex-parte)(Final)

Defendants for the recovery of a sum agglegating to Rs. 17,86,750/- (Rupees Seventeen lacs Eighty Six thousand Seven hundred and Fifty only) in respect of the credit facility mentioned in the oA alongwith cost, charges, pendente lite futwe interest as stated therein from the date of filing of this OA till its realisation'

Parties

Applicant is a "Bank" within Sec. 2(d) of the RDDB Act and lender t facility to Defendant No. 1 and2with the liability of Defendant No. 1

of the

credit facility as joint and several. Defendant No. 3 provided his p as additional security.

,ffiy

Defendant No. 1 and 2 are hereinafter

"the Borro\ /ers".

collectively referred to as

Factual makix :

1.(a) As per OA, Applicant

(b)

(.)

credit facility in the form of

Rupee Term Loan of Rs. 1

("

for the purchase of Flat No. 18,3'd

Floor, Sai Vihar

2 in Survey No. 10/11./B/1, in Village

Kamatwade, T

("the said Flat") from Shri. Ajay Jagdish Salunkhe, tation and security creation by the Borrowers his personal guarantee as additional security mortgage on the said Flat by way of execution of SimPle got registered with SRO, Nashik - 4.

the Borrowers failed and neglected to pay their liabilities in resP

the RTL and also neglected to observe the terms and conditions subject to which the RTL was sanctioned and disbursed. Applicant accordingly initiated action for recovery by issuing Recall Notice through the Advocate to all the Defendants calling upon them to repay the entire outstanding amount of the RTL and, consequent upon their failure to repay, the Applicant filed this to oA.

J

Order TOA 1669 of 2016 (Ex-pafiexFinal)

2. (a)Tribunal, after satisfying itseU of the OA being within limitation and falling within its territorial jurisdiction as per RDDB Act, ordered issue of Summons to the Defendants which got served.

(b) On transfer of the OA to this Tribunal, Transfer Notices were sent by Speed post which got served on the Defendants as per download from Postal site.

Applicant filed necessary Service Affidavit.

(.) As the Defendants did not appear either in person or through te and file Written Statements, the Defendants were set ex-parte by an Order of the Tribunal.

Proceedings :

ffiq

3. As directed by the Tribunal, Applicant Mr. Bhagyashree Ajit Samanth, Senior Manager, Claim Documents as Annexures (which have been Tribunal and marked as "Exhibits") and also filed Certificates under Bankers Account together with the are together marked as gone through by to consider and r Act, 1891, as Annexures (which Documents filed as Exhibits and are found relevant for the Tribunal ).

merit.

Exhibit

Document

S. No.

. Facility ,,, ;'..ii

ttg/,

Sanction Letter (Office CoPY)

Demand Promissory Note (Original)

,r11r,

Housing Loan Agreement (Original)

,r13r,

Letter of Utg / Dechl i/r of said Flat

(Original)

"L4"

Per. Guarantee of Def 3 (Original)

Simple Mortgage Deed bY Defl- &.2

i/r of the said Flat (Regd with SRO,

Nashik - a) (Original)

,r\8il

Reca1l Notice (Office CopY)

/)

,r10r,

L.

,r16r,

Order TOA 1669 of 2016 (Ex-parre)(Final)

Observation on Evidences Provided& Claim made:

4. The Statement of Account filed by the Applicant, certified as per Bankers Books of Evidence Ac! 1891., tallied with claim in oA. Further, the case of the Applicant is based on various Documents (including the above referred Exhibits) filed alongwith claim Affidavit, which is a sworn statement, which has gone unchallenged, as the Defendants remained ex-parte. In my view, there is no question of disbelieving the Exhibits and Claim and other evidences let in by the Applicant and the Applicant has beyond reasonable doubt to the extent of sanctioning the documentation and disbursement of the RTL.

5. The Applicant has claimed interest at the % p.u. with monthlY rests and penal interest at the rate of 2.00%

basis), both from

the date of filing of the OA till

the RDDB Act (which is analo

regards to Sec. 19(20) oI

Civil Procedure Code, 1908)

the contract between the

filing of the OA.Thus the

ant

ts comes to an end on the

in awardin g pendentelite and

future interest.

interest charged by banks for similar

facility, I am of

of justice will be served if the rate

interest is a

10.00% p.a. on simple interest basis.

6. In

discussions, the Original Application is being allowed and following terms.