Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Ganesh Sahebrao Ubale

DRT6 Oct 2025OA/100/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Union Bank of India against two borrowers for recovery of Rs. 21.67 lakhs. The court held the bank entitled to recover the principal and future interest at 9% p.a., secured by mortgage and hypothecation, due to default in repayment.

What did the court decide?

Defendants held jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 21,67,035/- with future interest at 9% p.a. secured by mortgage/hypothecation; Recovery Certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus Ganesh Sahebrao Ubale — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 04.02.2022 Registered on: 29.04.2022 Decided on: 06.10.2025 Duration: Y M D 03 08 02

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 100/2022

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 21,67,035/-

¶4

Union Bank of India,

¶5

A Body Corporate and constituted under the Banking companies (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act 1970, Having its Central office at Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai400021. And amongst other branches, one of its branch office at PITTI Complex, Neharu Road, Sarafa Bazar, Jalna Tq. And Dist. Jalna. Through its Authorized Person, Shri. Yogesh Sitaram Girhe, Age: 41 yrs., Occ.: Service, Working as Manager, Union Bank of India, Jalna

… Applicant

Versus

(OA No.100/2022)

Page 1 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Ganesh Sahebrao Ubale Age: Major, Occu.: Agriculture At Post 63, Nandapur, near maruti mandir, Tq. And District Jalna 431203.

¶12

Shri. Santosh Harilal Kabaliye Age: Major, Occu.: Agriculture R/o.: 1-32-104712, Kumbharwada, Near Ram Mandir, Kajipua Tq. And District Jalna 431203.

¶13

…Defendants

¶14

APPEARANCES

¶15

For the Applicant For Defendants

¶16

Mr. Atul A. Mishra -Advocate Ex-parte

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Delivered on 06.10.2025

¶19

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 21,67,035/- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs, Sixty Seven Thousand, Thirty Five only), along with future interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 04.02.2022, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from

¶20

the Defendants.

¶21

Brief facts of the application are as under:

(OA No.100/2022)

Page 2 of 8

[AMBADAS]

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendant No. 1 approached and requested the Applicant Bank seeking financial assistance for the purpose of Grapes Gardening, Purchase of Tractor & Drip Irrigation work. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the Defendant, the Applicant Bank sanctioned a Term loan facility of Rs. 18,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 26.12.2014 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for the aforesaid loan was @12.75% p.a. with half yearly rests. The Defendant also agreed to pay additional interest @2% by way of liquidated damages in the event of any default in repayment.

¶26

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendant executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letter, registered mortgage deed bearing daybook no. 3951 dated 18.12.2014, letter of undertaking, demand promissory note, letter of continuity & hypothecation agreement. Additionally defendant No. 2 stood as guarantor for

(OA No.100/2022)

Page 3 of 8

[AMBADAS]

defendant No. 1 and executed deed of guarantee on 26.12.2014 in

¶31

favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶32

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendant No. 1 created first charge over his immovable property under daybook no. 3951 dated 18.12.2014 in favour of the Applicant Bank. The mortgage was created in respect of the following property-

¶33

All that piece and parcel of property bearing Gut No. 39, admeasuring 3 Hector 16 R, situated at village Bokhadi, Tq. And Dist. Jalna.

¶34

The applicant bank further states that in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant No. 1 also executed hypothecation agreement thereby hypothecating Tractor Mitsubhi Shakti VT 224 ID, Chassis No. T15J058788, Engine No. D15J011788 bearing vehicle No. MH21AN1193 registered on 28.12.2015.

(OA No.100/2022)

Page 4 of 8

[AMBADAS]

The applicant bank contended that the defendants have failed to keep their promise and commitments agreed by them with regard to due repayment of the loan amount. The defendants failed to operate the loan account properly and failed to pay the agreed rate of interest as per terms and conditions of the sanction letter. Thereafter, the applicant bank repeatedly made demand of loan amount and called upon the defendants to pay with the agreed rate of interest thereon, but the defendants failed and neglected to pay the same. The loan account of the defendants became irregular and classified as NPA on 31.07.2021. Therefore, on 17.01.2022 the applicant bank issued legal notice to the defendants through their advocate. Despite service of Notices, the defendants failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶39

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were served through summons. Hence, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 23.11.2023.

(OA No.100/2022)

Page 5 of 8

[AMBADAS]

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Yogesh Sitaram Girhe, Branch Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Annexure A-1 to A-17 along with list of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶44

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

¶45

Since the defendants failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted evidence of the applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for the reliefs as claimed.

¶46

The applicant Bank has claimed charge over immovable property of the borrower which is mortgaged in favour of the applicant bank.

¶47

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @12.75 p. a. on term loan from the date of filing i.e. 04.02.2022 of this application

(OA No.100/2022)

Page 6 of 8

[AMBADAS]

till realization of the claim amount. 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.

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(A) Original Application No. 100/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶54

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 21,67,035/- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs, Sixty Seven Thousand, Thirty Five only), along with future interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 04.02.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶55

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the mortgage of the following immovable property bearing daybook no. 3951 vide registered mortgage deed dated 18.12.2014 at Annexure A-3 in list of documents Exh. 5.

(OA No.100/2022)

Page 7 of 8

[AMBADAS]

All that piece and parcel of property bearing Gut No. 39, admeasuring 3 Hector 16 R, situated at village Bokhadi, Tq. And Dist. Jalna and bounded as under:-

¶60

East: Land of Kaduba Kasar, West: Land of Ashok Rambhau Ubale, South: Land of Kailash P. Ubale, North: By river

¶61

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged immovable property and hypothecated articles/goods/ vehicles etc., to recover its dues.

¶62

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶63

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

¶64

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

Pronounced in open court. (Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Place: Aurangabad Presiding Officer Date:.06.10.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶67

(OA No.100/2022)

¶68

Page 8 of 8

¶69

[AMBADAS]

Union Bank of India v. Ganesh Sahebrao Ubale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Ganesh Sahebrao Ubale

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

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S Omkar Agency

Pramod Manikrao Joshi versus the Pandharpur Urban Co. Op. Bank Ltd. Pandharpur

Union Bank of India versus Rahul Abasaheb Jambhalkar

Bank of Maharashtra versus Shaikh Rashid Shaikh Gani

Bank of Baroda versus Prakash Pralhad Salve

Union Bank of India versus Mangal Narayan Chavan