Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Anita Agency

DRT15 Sept 2025OA/134/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this ex-parte proceedings, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the State Bank of India's application for recovery of Rs. 32,54,546/- due to loan default. The court directed the respondents to pay the principal sum plus 12% annual simple interest and authorized the sale of mortgaged property to satisfy the debt.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to pay Rs. 32,54,546/- with 12% simple annual interest; property to be sold to recover dues; Recovery Certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus M/S Anita Agency — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 06.10.2021 Registered on: 03.06.2022 Decided on: 15.09.2025 Duration: Y M D 03 11 09

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 134/2022

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 32,54,546/-

¶4

STATE BANK OF INDIA,

¶5

A body corporate constituted under the State Bank

¶6

of India Act, 1955, having its Central Office at

¶7

Madam Kama Road, Mumbai and having one of its Branches at Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. Through its Assistant Manager, City Case Manager, Amit Mohan Bhilegaonkar, Age: 37 years, Occ.: Service, as a Assistant Manager, City Case Manager, R/o. Tq & Dist. Aurangabad.

… Applicant

(OA No.134/2022)

Page 1 of 9

[AMBADAS]

Versus

M/s Anita Agency, Prop. Pramod Satishrao Deshpande, Age: Major, Occ.: Business, R/o.: D-4 Chowdhari Estate, Beed by pass, Satara Parisar, Dist. Aurangabad AND RM-180/1, Indraprasth Colony Nr. Alphonsa English School, MIDC Waluj, Tisgaon Aurangabad

¶14

Ashok Krishnarao Deshpande, Age: Major, Occ.: Business, R/o.: D-4 Chowdhari Estate, Beed by pass, Satara Parisar, Dist. Aurangabad

¶15

…Defendants

¶16

Pramod Satishrao Deshpande, Age: Major, Occ.: Business, R/o.: D-4 Chowdhari Estate, Beed by pass, Satara Parisar, Dist. Aurangabad

¶17

APPEARANCES For the Applicant For Defendants

¶18

Mr. A.L. Muley Advocate Ex-parte

(OA No.134/2022)

Page 2 of 9

[AMBADAS]

JUDGMENT

Delivered on 15.09.2025

¶24

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the

¶25

recovery of a sum of Rs. 32,54,546 /- (Rupees Thirty Two Lacs, Fifty Four Thousand, Five Hundred and Forty Six only), along with further interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 06.10.2021, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶26

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶27

That, the Defendant 1 had approached to the Applicant bank and requested to sanction a Cash Credit Facility. Upon considering the request and need of the defendant, the Applicant Bank sanctioned a Cash Credit Facility of Rs. 30,00,000/- lacs vide sanction letter dated 08.04.2013 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest was @ 10.20% p.a. with monthly rests. The defendant also agreed to pay an additional interest by way of liquidated damages @ 2% p.a. in case of

(OA No.134/2022)

Page 3 of 9

[AMBADAS]

default in repayment. Furthermore, the defendant No. 1 enhanced the said cash credit facility on 30.03.2019

¶32

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendant executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank, including the sanction letters, demand promissory note, letter of undertaking, hypothecation agreement, letter of continuity, registered sale deed vide its filing no. 7605/2011 dated 23.09.2011, registered mortgage deed bearing no. 14/2019 dated 30.03.2019. Additionally defendant No. 2 and 3 stood as guarantor for defendant No. 1 and executed deeds of guarantee on 26.04.2013 & 30.03.2019 in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶33

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid Loan sanctioned to them, the Defendants created first charge over their immovable property by deposit of registered sale deed vide its filing no. 7605/2011 dated 23.09.2011, in

(OA No.134/2022)

Page 4 of 9

[AMBADAS]

favour, of the Applicant Bank. The mortgage was created in

¶38

respect of the following property –

¶39

All that piece & parcel of agriculture land property bearing Survey No. 54/P, CTS No. 3864 shit no. 160/P, plot no. 92 situated at parasnagar, village vajirabad vaghala, Nanded in the name of defendant No. 2 i.e. Ashok Krushnarao Deshpande, which is bounded as under: East: - Plot No. 94, West: - Plot No. 92 part, South: - Survey No. 54, North:- Road.

¶40

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. Therefore, on 01.08.2021 the applicant bank issued legal Notice to the

(OA No.134/2022)

Page 5 of 9

[AMBADAS]

defendants. The defendants failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶45

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were duly served by way of publication. Hence, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 18.03.2024.

¶46

¶47

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Amit Mohan Bhilegaonkar, Assistant Manager, City Case Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Exh. A-1 to A-20 as per list of documents Exh. 5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶48

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

¶49

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

(OA No.134/2022)

Page 6 of 9

[AMBADAS]

entitled for the reliefs as claimed.

¶54

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

¶55

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @ 14.15% per annum with monthly rests on the loan from the date of filing i.e. 06.10.2021 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 @ 12% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶56

ORDER

¶57

(A) Original Application No. 134/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶58

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 32,54,546 /- (Rupees Thirty Two Lacs, Fifty Four Thousand, Five Hundred and Forty Six only), along with future interest @ 12% per

(OA No.134/2022)

Page 7 of 9

[AMBADAS]

annum (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 06.10.2021 till full payment/realization

¶63

of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶64

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the mortgaged of the following immovable property vide registered sale deed vide its filing no. 7605/2011 dated 23.09.2011, at Exh. A-8, Exh. A-9 to A-11 and Exh. A-18 in list of documents Exh. 5.

¶65

All that piece & parcel of agriculturd landed property bearing Survey No. 54/P, CTS No. 3864 shit no. 160/P, plot no. 92 situated at parasnagar, village vajirabad vaghala, nanded in the name of defendant No. 2 i.e. Ashok Krushnarao Deshpande, which is bounded as under:

¶66

East: - Plot No. 94, West: - Plot No. 92 part, South: - Survey No. 54, North:- Road.

¶67

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

¶68

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

(OA No.134/2022)

Page 8 of 9

[AMBADAS]

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

¶73

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶74

Sd/-

¶75

Pronounced in open court. Place: Aurangabad Date:.15.09.2025

¶76

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

¶77

(OA No.134/2022)

¶78

Page 9 of 9

¶79

[AMBADAS]

State Bank of India v. M/S Anita Agency

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Anita Agency

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 India versus Ramrao Dadarao Shelke

Jyoti Yashwantrao Sansare versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Digambar Manikrao Deshmukh

Bharat Alurao Rathod versus Canara Bank

Sunil Chandrabhan Wagh versus Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd.

Hirabai Wo Raosaheb Gagare versus Shubham Housing Development Finance Company Limited