BANK OF MAHARASHTRA vs MILIND on 9 May 2019

Exb,'ry

Presented on z 06/0L/201"6

Registered on z 05/04/2016

Transferred on : 07ft0/2016

Decided on:09/05/20L9

Duration : 0a(D)/0L(My03(Y)

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - III AT MUMBAI

DATED THIS 9th DAY OF MAY 2019

PRESENT : SHRI. T S ASOKRAJ

PRESIDING OFFICER

T O A No. 2094 of 2016

Bank of Maharashtra

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

and having its Head Office at'Lok Mangall, 1501, Shivaji Nagar, Pune - 411 005 and branch office amongst others, at Pargaon Branch, R RPatil Pargaon, Taluka Palghar, Distuict Palghar, Represented by Senior Manager Applicant

1. Mr. Milind l(amlakar Patil,

Prop. of : Meet Enterprises,

R/a-KardafPost

Taluk Palghar,

Defenclant No. 1

2. Mr. Vasudev

R/a - Kardal,

Saphale,

P

- 401.102

Defendant No. 2

tel,

: Umberpada, Saphale,

Palghar -401.102

Defendant No. 3

Present:

Sachin A Koli, 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 Defendants for the recovery of a sum aggregating to Rs. 1'4,93,432/- (Rupees )

)

tEP-

)

)

)

)

aJ

Il

i'

t

)

a

Fourteen lacs Ninety Three thousand Four hundred and Thirty Two only) in respect of the credit facility mentioned in the OA alongwith cost, charges, pendente lite fature 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 of credit facility to Defendant No. L who availed the same for his business entity as below.

Defendant No. 1 is the Sole Proprietor of a Sole Proprietary on business under the name and style Meet Enterprises the Firrn') and credit facility from the Applicant for the operation of Defendant No.2 and 3 are the Guarantors for the said credit facility No. 1 from the Applicant.

Factual matrix :

1.(a) As per OA, on being

the operation of the

by

No. 1 seeking credit facility for

credit facility in the form of

Rupee Term

TL") to Defendant No. 1 and Defendant

No. l completed

security creation by way of hypothecation of moveables of and in the name of the Firm. Defendant No" 2

and 3

security of personal guarantee. Defendant No. 1 also security for the RTL by executing a Deed of Simple of his House (short description given in the OA) and the registered with SRO, Palghar.

(b) As

the operation of the RTL account was not satisfactory and there was failure in payment of instalments by Defendant No. 1 and, in spite of reminders, Defendant no. 1 did not pay the instalments and regularise the account. Applicant therefore classified the RTL account as Non-Performing Asset and issued Legal Notices to the Defendants calling upon the Defendants to repay the entire outstanding amount of the RTL and, consequent to failure of the Defendants to repay, the OA has been filed.

J

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

(b) Transfer Notices were sent to the Defendants by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due which got served on the Defendants and Acknowledgement Due Cards received back. Applicant filed Service Affidavit.

(c) As regards Defendant No. L, an Advocate appeared and filed andum of Undertaking to file Vakalatnama but did not file V

thereafter. Defendant No. 2 and 3 did not appear either in advocate. Since the Defendants did not appear and file Written the Defendants were set ex-parte on09/07/

.,:,:

N.d: 2 and 3) and on

1,6/07 /2018 (Defendant No. 1)by Orders

Proceedifrgs :

3. As directed by the Tribunal, A

Mrs. Kavita Thattil, Senior

Documents as Annexures

Manager (Law), Claim

(which have been taken

by

and marked as "Exhibits")

and also filed

Account together with the Certificates

under Bankers

'Act, !89L, as Annexures (which are marked as Exhibit Documents filed as Exhibits and gone through are found relevant for the Tribunal to consider by the on merit.

Exhibit

Document

,::.,,,

ttt t.,;uryftLl7ty

,r10r,

Sanction Letter (Office Copy)

1J

Demand Promissory Note (Original)

'14'

Comp. Deed of HyPothecation

(Original)

,r11r,

l,Rupee Term Loan

(Rs. 15,00,000/-)

Deed of Simple Mortgage by Def 1, i/ r

of his House (Regd with SRO,

Palghar) (Original)

Personal Guarantee of Def 2 & 3 (Or1)

Reca1l Notice (Office CoPY)

,r17r,

Observation on Evidences provided& Claim made:

4. The Statement of Account filed by the Applicant, certified as per Bankers Books of Evidence Act, 1891., talTied with claim in OA. Further, the case of the Applicant is based on various Documents (including the referred Exhibits) filed alongwith Claim Affidavit, which is a has gone unchallenged as the Defendants did not defend not filing Written Statements. In my view, there is no question of the Exhibits and Claim Affidavit and other let in byrthe Applicant and the Applicant has proved its case doubt to the extent of sanctioning the RTL, completing

and

t of the RTL.

5. The Applicant has claimed

75% p.a. with monthlY rests

from the date of fiting of

of the RDDB Act (which

ti11

Having regards to Sec. 19(20)

to

34 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908)

the contract

Defendants comes to an end on the

filing of the OA.

has discretion in awarding pendente lite and future the rate of interest charged by banks for similar opinion that interest of justice will be served if the at the rate of 12.00% p.a. on simple interest basis.

ta

6.

above discussions, the original Application is being allowed and on the following terms.