Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Vikrant

DRT6 Oct 2025OA/1265/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Union Bank of India for a recovery certificate arising from an agricultural term loan. The defendants, who failed to appear, were held liable for the principal amount along with future interest at 9% p.a. The court also directed the creation of a charge on the mortgaged land.

What did the court decide?

Issue of Recovery Certificate; Defendant No.1 to pay Rs. 26,31,607/- with future interest at 9% p.a.; Direction to create charge on mortgaged property; Authorization to sell property for recovery.

Union Bank of India versus Vikrant — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 07.11.2022 Registered on: 05.10.2023 Decided on: 06.10.2025 Duration: Y M D 02 10 29

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.1265/2023.

¶3

Union Bank of India,

¶4

A Banking Company constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Central Office at Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Mumbai-400 021 and branch amongst other places at Karmala, Main Road Karmala, Taluka Karmala, District Solapur.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Vikrant Vilas Ghumare Adult, Occ.:- Agrist. & Business,

¶8

Mr. Vilas Ramchandra Ghumare Adult, Occ.:- Agrist. & Business,

¶9

Mrs. Jayshree Vilas Ghumare Adult, Occ.:- Agrist. & Business, All R/at – Village Mangi, Taluka Karmala, District Solapur.

¶10

… Defendants

¶11

APPEARANCES

¶12

For the Applicant Mrs. Bhakti Rokade i/bMr. Srinivas Y. - Advocate For the Defendants Ex parte

¶13

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.26,31,607/-

(OA No.1265/2023)

Page 1 of 6

[ANIL]

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 6^th October, 2025)

¶18

The applicant Bank has filed present application for recovery certificate of Rs.26,31,607/- together with future interest thereon @11.30% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of filing of Suit with pendent lite and till the actual realization of entire amount from defendant No.1 in respect of Agricultural Term Loan Facility.

¶19

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶20

Defendant No.1 approached the applicant bank and requested for Agricultural Term Loan Facility of Rs.15,75,000/- for the purpose of construction of Fruit Preservation and Ripening Chamber. Defendant No.2 and 3 agreed to stand as guarantor to the said loan facility.

¶21

Applicant Bank granted Term Loan Facility of Rs.15,75,000/- to Defendant No.1 on 31.03.2012 for the purpose of construction of fruit Preservation and Ripening Chamber, on certain terms and conditions.

¶22

In order to secure the aforesaid Loan facility, defendant No.1 executed necessary loan transaction and security documents, on 31.03.2012 in favour of the Applicant Bank, as set out in Para No. 5.5 of the Original Application.

(OA No.1265/2023)

Page 2 of 6

[ANIL]

Defendant No.1 has executed Declaration as required by Section 5(1) of the Maharashtra Provision of Facilities for Agricultural Credit by Banks Act, 1974 of the immovable property and created a charge of the applicant bank on the said land for securing the financial assistance together with interest and cost and expenses thereon.

¶27

Immovable Property : -

¶28

All that piece and parcel of the Property Bearing Survey No.201/3/B admeasuring about 01H 14R lying and situated at village Mangi, Taluka Karmala, District Solapur.

¶29

It is contended that after sanction of Agricultural Term Loan Facility and execution of security documents, Defendant No.1 has availed Agricultural Term Loan Facility and utilized the same as per its requirement and exigencies from time to time. Defendant No.1 did not operate the said loan account in a disciplined manner and failed to repay the installments as agreed and thus the operation in the said Agricultural Term Loan Facility was irregular and not satisfactory. Thus, defendant No.1 failed to adhere to the repayment schedule of the Term Loan of Rs.15,75,000/-.

¶30

In spite of repeated accommodations granted to the defendants, defendants failed and neglected to make repayment of the loan amount, therefore, the loan account was classified as NPA on 31.03.2021. Therefore, the applicant Bank issued Legal Notice

(OA No.1265/2023)

Page 3 of 6

[ANIL]

dated 28.10.2022 through Advocate Srinivas B. Yelery to the defendants calling upon them to repay the outstanding dues in the loan account.

¶35

Even after repeated fallow-up, the defendants failed to pay the installments in the Account and failed to regularize the said account.

¶36

Hence, this application is filed.

¶37

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against them vide Order dated 30.06.2025 passed below the Application (Exhibit-01).

¶38

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Shri. Mahadeo Maruti Tikate, Branch Manager, which supports the case of the applicant elucidated in the application.

¶39

The applicant Bank has produced in evidence the original loan documents at Exhs. AW-1/1 to AW-1/9 which corroborate the case of the applicant Bank.

¶40

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

¶41

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

(OA No.1265/2023)

Page 4 of 6

[ANIL]

Though in the pleading the applicant bank has contended that Defendant No.2 and 3 stood guarantors to the Agricultural loan facility availed by Defendant No.1, in the prayer clause applicant bank has claimed relief against Defendant No.1 only.

¶46

10 Considering the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple) for the said facility, it would be just and reasonable.

¶47

11 Hence, I pass the following order: -

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(A) Original Application No.1265/2023 is allowed with costs.

¶50

(B) Defendant No.1 shall pay to the Applicant Bank Rs . 26,31,607 /- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Six Hundred Seven only) towards Agriculture Term Loan Facility with future interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 07.11.2022 till payment/ realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶51

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by creating charge of the applicant bank on the immovable property i.e. all that piece and parcel of the property bearing Survey No.201/3/B admeasuring 01H 14R lying and situated at village Mangi, Taluka Karmala, District Solapur, more particularly described in Para No.5.7 of the Original Application.

(OA No.1265/2023)

Page 5 of 6

[ANIL]

(D) The Applicant Bank is entitled to sell the charged immovable property to recover its dues.

¶56

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶57

(F) The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant and defendant No.1.

¶58

Place: Pune Date: 06.10.2025

¶59

Sd/(Dilip G. Murumkar) Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶60

(OA No.1265/2023)

¶61

Page 6 of 6

¶62

[ANIL]

Union Bank of India v. Vikrant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Vikrant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of Maharashtra versus Shakuntala

Bank of India versus Ganpat Malekar

State Bank of India versus Mark Andrade

Canara Bank versus Narayan

Union Bank of India versus Manik

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Vvr Infra Logistics Pvt. Ltd.