Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Somnath Raoba Gite

DRT13 Aug 2025OA/125/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte application for debt recovery, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank’s claim for principal dues and adjusted future interest at 9% per annum, securing the recovery through sale of mortgaged immovable property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 2,88,67,193.63 with 9% per annum simple interest from 30.02.2022; direction to sell mortgaged property to recover dues; issue of Recovery Certificate.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Somnath Raoba Gite — Money Laundering | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 30.02.2022 Registered on: 04.10.2023 Decided on: 13.08.2025 Duration: Y M D 03 05 13

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.125/2023

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 2,88,67,193.63/-

¶4

Bank of Maharashtra

¶5

A Body Corporate constituted under the provisions of Banking Companies (Acquisition of Transfer of Undertakings) Act V of 1970, Having its Head Office at 1501 Lokmangal, Shivaji Nagar, Pune and branch amongst other places at Sangamner Branch, District Ahmednagar Through its Chief Manager Mr. Jyotiranjan Samantaray s/o Netrananda Samantaray Age: 36 years, Occu: Service as Chief Manager with Bank of Maharashtra, Sangamner Branch, District Ahmednagar R/o.: Ahmendnagar

… Applicant

(OA No.125/2023)

Page 1 of 10

[AMBADAS]

Versus

Somnath Raoba Gite Age: 59 years, Occu: Business R/o.: At Sanapvasti, At post Sanoshi, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar

¶12

…Defendant

¶13

APPEARANCES For the Applicant For Defendant

¶14

Mr. P.N. Kapadia - Advocate Ex-parte

¶15

J U D G M E N T Delivered on 01.08.2025

¶16

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,88,67,193.63/- (Rupees Two Crore Eighty Eight Lacs Sixty Seven Thousand One Hundred Ninety Three and Sixty Three Paisa only), along with further interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 30.02.2022, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendant.

(OA No.125/2023)

Page 2 of 10

[AMBADAS]

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶21

The Applicant Bank states that Defendant had approached and requested the Applicant Bank for the sanction of a Cash Credit facility. Upon due consideration of the said request and the financial requirements of the Defendants, the Applicant Bank sanctioned a Cash Credit facility of Rs. 74,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Four Lacs only) vide sanction letter dated 31.12.2012., subject to certain terms and conditions as mutually agreed upon. The said limit was further enhanced on 12.04.2013 to the tune of

¶22

Rs. 92,00,000/-. The said facility was again renewed and enhanced to Rs, 1,50,00,000/- on 25.04.2013.

¶23

The Applicant Bank further states that the Defendant subsequently requested for an enhancement of the said loan facility from Rs. 1,50,00,000/- to Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore only). Upon consideration of the said request, the Applicant Bank sanctioned the enhanced Cash Credit facility vide

(OA No.125/2023)

Page 3 of 10

[AMBADAS]

sanction letter dated 28.06.2019, at an agreed rate of interest of

¶28

@12.10% per annum with monthly rests. The Defendants also

¶29

agreed to pay additional interest of @2% way of liquidated

¶30

¶31

damages in the event of any default in repayment.

¶32

The applicant contents that the defendant again requested the applicant bank for Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme to provide liquidity to meet operational liabilities and restart the business after unprecedented situated emerging out of Covid-19. Upon considering the request of the defendant, the applicant bank sanctioned a ECLGS facility of Rs. 40,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 26.11.2020 with interest @7.50% p.a. with monthly rest to the defendant. The Defendant also agreed to pay additional interest of @2% way of liquidated damages in the event of any default in repayment.

¶33

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendants executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant

(OA No.125/2023)

Page 4 of 10

[AMBADAS]

Bank. These included sanction letters, request letters, deed of

¶38

hypothecations, demand promissory notes, simple mortgages bearing day book Nos. 1789/2019 and 3498/2020.

¶39

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities sanctioned to him, the Defendant created simple registered mortgage of his immovable property on 28.06.2019 and 27.11.2020 which was duly registered with SubRegistrar, Sangamner vide day book No. 1798/2019 and day book No. 3498/2020 respectively (Exh. A-5 and Exh. A-10) in favour of the Applicant Bank. The mortgage was created in respect of the following property –

¶40

All the piece and parcel of the Land Suvey No. 947/7, stuated at Loni Nandur Singote Road, Nannaj Dumala, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmendnagar adm. 80R alongwith construction thereon, which is bounded as under:

¶41

East: Road West: Survey No. 947/7/P North: Loni Nanur Shingote Road South: Survey No. 947/7/P

(OA No.125/2023)

Page 5 of 10

[AMBADAS]

The applicant bank further states that the defendant also hypothecated stocks, plant & machineries and other movable asset and asset created from bank etc. to secure the aforesaid loans in favour of the applicant bank.

¶46

The applicant bank contended that the defendant have failed to keep his promise and commitments agreed by him with regard to due repayment of the loan amount. The defendant 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 defendant to pay with the agreed rate of interest thereon, but the defendant failed and neglected to pay the same. The loan account of the defendant became irregular and classified as NPA on 31.03.2021. Therefore on 22.07.2021 the applicant bank issued legal notice to the defendant through his advocate. Despite service of Notices, the defendant failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

(OA No.125/2023)

Page 6 of 10

[AMBADAS]

The defendant failed to appear in matter though he was given sufficient opportunities to submit written statement. Hence, the right of defendant to file the written statement stands closed. Hence, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 01.03.2025.

¶51

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Mr. Jyotiranjan Samantaray s/o Netrananda Samantaray, Chief Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Exh. A-1 to A-16 along with list of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶52

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

¶53

Since the defendant 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.

(OA No.125/2023)

Page 7 of 10

[AMBADAS]

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

¶58

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @ 11.40% per annum on cash credit and @ 9.25% p.a. on ECLGS loan from the date of filing i.e. 30.02.2022 of this application 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) on both the loans, it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶59

ORDER

¶60

(A) Original Application No.125/2023 is allowed with costs.

¶61

(B) The defendant shall pay to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 2,88,67,193.63/- (Rupees Two Crore Eighty Eight Lacs Sixty Seven Thousand One Hundred Ninety Three and Sixty Three Paisa only), along with future interest

(OA No.125/2023)

Page 8 of 10

[AMBADAS]

@ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 30.02.2022 till full payment / realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶66

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the simple mortgage as referred above vide documents at Exh A-5 and A-10 in the list of documents Exh 5. The details the immovable property are as under :-

¶67

All the piece and parcel of the Land Suvey No. 947/7, stuated at Loni Nandur Singote Road, Nannaj Dumala, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmendnagar adm. 80R alongwith construction thereon, which is bounded as under:

¶68

East: Road West: Survey No. 947/7/P North: Loni Nanur Shingote Road South: Survey No. 947/7/P

¶69

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

¶70

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

(OA No.125/2023)

Page 9 of 10

[AMBADAS]

(F) The Registrar is directed to send the copy of the

¶75

Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant and defendant.

¶76

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶77

Sd/-

¶78

Pronounced in open court. Place : Aurangabad Date : . 13.08.2025

¶79

(Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶80

(OA No.125/2023)

¶81

Page 10 of 10

¶82

[AMBADAS]

Bank of Maharashtra v. Somnath Raoba Gite

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Somnath Raoba Gite

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/s Adarsh Dairy Products Pvt. Limited

Bank of Baroda versus M/s. Hake Medical and General Stores

Saleha Begum Sher Khan Pathan versus Lokvikas Nagari Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Idbi Bank versus Rupali W/o Nitin Agrawal

Icici Bank Limited versus S R Mote Fuel Station

State Bank of India versus Santosh Haribhau Kate