Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Parmeshwar

DRT18 Sept 2025OA/1365/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the original application filed by Bank of Maharashtra for recovery of dues aggregating Rs. 44,83,823/- plus future interest from three respondents. The court adjusted the future interest rate to 9% p.a. and directed the sale of secured immovable properties. Guilty

What did the court decide?

Respondents to pay aggregate sum of Rs. 44,83,823/- plus 9% simple future interest; applicant allowed to sell secured immovable properties; recovery certificate issued.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Parmeshwar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 21.03.2023 Registered on: 23.10.2023 Decided on: 18.09.2025 Duration: Y M D 02 05 27

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.1365/2023.

¶3

Bank of Maharashtra ,

¶4

A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisitions & Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 having its Head Office at “Lokmangal” 1501, Shivajinagar, Pune-5 and Branch amongst other places at Pennur Branch, Taluka Mohol, District Solapur-413 248.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Parameshwar Dagadu Raut Age Adult, Occu.:- Agri. & Business

¶8

Mr. Laxman Dagadu Raut Age Adult, Occu.:- Agri. & Business

¶9

Mr. Kashinath Dagadu Raut Age Adult, Occu.:- Agri. & Business All R/at & Post Penur, Tal. Mohol, District Solapur- 413 248.

¶10

.. Defendants

¶11

APPEARANCES

¶12

For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶13

Advocate Mr. Srinivas Y. Ex-parte.

¶14

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs.44,83,823/-

¶15

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 18^th September, 2025)

(OA No.1365/2023)

Page 1 of 6

[ANIL]

1 The Applicant Bank has filed present application for recovery of aggregate sum of Rs.44,83,823/- [i.e.Rs.12,76,941/- towards Agri. Term Loan A/c No.60121781206 and Rs.32,06,882/- towards MKCC Facility A/c No.60138662451] together with future interest thereon at the rate of @11.15% p.a. & @10.20% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of filing this application i.e.21.03.2023 till actual realization of amount from the Defendants.

¶20

2 Brief facts of the application are as under:-

¶21

Defendant No.1 was in need of financial assistance for the purpose of installation of Pipeline, Electric Pump Set and Dug Well and therefore, approached to the applicant Bank for Mahabank Kisan Credit Card Facility to the tune of Rs.8,40,000/-. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 stood as guarantors to the said loan facility.

¶22

Applicant Bank considered the request of defendant No.1 and sanctioned Mahabank Kisan Credit Card Facility of Rs.8,40,000/- to Defendant No.1 on 19.01.2013 for installation of Pipeline, Electric Pump Set and Dug Well.

¶23

Defendant No.1 has executed security documents in favour of the applicant bank on 19.01.2013 for securing the said loan facility in favour of the applicant bank, as mentioned in Para No.5.3.2 of the Original Application.

¶24

Applicant bank submits that by balance and security Confirmation Letters on 18.01.2016, 15.01.2019 and 14.01.2022 executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of the applicant bank and thereby confirmed and acknowledged in writing their indebtness in the sum of debit balance outstanding in the said loan account.

(OA No.1365/2023)

Page 2 of 6

[ANIL]

Defendant No.1 once again approached the applicant bank for Mahabank Kisan Credit Card Facility of Rs.17,36,000/- and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 stood guarantors for the said loan facility.

¶29

Applicant bank again sanctioned and disbursed Mahabank Kisan Credit Card Facility of Rs.17,36,000/- to Defendant No.1 on 14.06.2014.

¶30

Defendant No.1 has signed and executed certain security documents in favour of the applicant bank for securing Mahabank Kisan Credit Facility of Rs.17,36,000/- granted by applicant as mentioned in Para No.5.4.2 in the Original Application.

¶31

Defendant No.1 has executed declaration as required by Section 5(1) of the Maharashtra Provision of Facilities for Agriculture Credit by Banks Act, 1974 and created charge of the applicant on the immovable land for securing the loan facilities availed from the applicant bank. The immovable property is as under :-

¶32

All that piece and parcel of the properties bearing (i) - S.No.635/2/B/1 admeasuring about 01H 62R; (ii) - S.No.656/1/A admeasuring about 04H 04R; (iii) - S.No.714/2/C admeasuring about 01H 20R; (iv) - S.No.548/5 admeasuring about 00H 0.12R; (v) - S.No.671/2/B admeasuring about 00H 1.25R lying and situated at village Pennur, Taluka Mohol, District Solapur and Survey No.419/1 admeasuring about 01H 97R lying and situated at village Papti, Taluka Mohol, District Solapur and S.No.518/1 admeasuring about 00H 06R lying and situated at village Yevati, Taluka Mohol, District Solapur, more particularly described in Para No.5.4.4 of the Original Application.

(OA No.1365/2023)

Page 3 of 6

[ANIL]

4 Defendant No.1 has availed the Credit Facilities and utilized the same as per requirement and exigencies from time to time. But Defendant No.1 did not operate the said loan accounts in a disciplined manner and failed to repay the amount in the loan accounts. Hence, the Accounts have been classified as NonPerforming Asset on 31.03.2020 as per the Reserve Bank of India Norms.

¶37

Thereafter, in spite of repeated request, reminders and demands by the applicant bank, Defendants have willfully and deliberately failed, neglected and refused with malafide intention to make payment of the said outstanding loan accounts. Hence, the applicant bank through its Advocate issued Demand Notice dated 16.11.2022 to the defendants calling upon them to pay the outstanding amounts in the loan accounts. However, the defendants did not pay the outstanding amount due in the loan accounts.

¶38

Hence, this application is filed.

¶39

5 Defendants have failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against them vide Order dated 21.07.2025 passed below the Application (Exh.-01).

¶40

6 The Applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of Mr. Mantini Koteswara Rao, Chief Manager & produced on record the Loan Transaction documents (Exh.10) at Exhibits.AW-1 to AW-09, which corroborates the case of the Applicant Bank.

¶41

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

(OA No.1365/2023)

Page 4 of 6

[ANIL]

8 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.

¶46

9 The Applicant Bank has claimed relief in respect of hypothecated assets, as mentioned in the Original Application. However, there is no detailed description with respect to hypothecated vehicle/assets. Therefore, the relief in terms of hypothecated vehicle/ assets cannot be granted.

¶47

10 The Applicant Bank has claimed future interest @11.15%p.a. & @10.20% p.a. respectively for loan facilities. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% p.a. (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶48

11 Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(A) Original Application No.1365/2023 is allowed with costs.

¶51

(B) Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay an aggregate sum of Rs.44,83,823/- (Rupees Fourty Four Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Three only) to the applicant bank, as under-

¶52

(i)- Out of Rs.44,83,823/-, Defendant Nos.1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay an amount of Rs.12,76,941 /- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand Nine Hundred Fourty One only) towards Agri. Term Loan A/c No. 60121781206 to the applicant bank with future interest @9% p.a. (Simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e.21.03.2023 till payment/ realization of the amount.

(OA No.1365/2023)

Page 5 of 6

[ANIL]

(ii)- Out of Rs.44,83,823/-, Defendant No.1 shall pay a sum of Rs . 32,06,882 /- (Rupees Thirty Two lakhs Six Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Two only) towards MKCC A/c No.60138662451 to the applicant bank with future interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e.21.03.2023 till payment/ realization of the amount.

¶57

The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by creating charge of the applicant of the immovable properties i.e.

¶58

All that piece and parcel of the properties i.e. (i) - S.No.635/2/B/1 admeasuring about 01H 62R; (ii) - S.No.656/1/A admeasuring about 04H 04R; (iii) - S.No.714/2/C admeasuring about 01H 20R; (iv) - S.No.548/5 admeasuring about 00H 0.12R; (v) - S.No.671/2/B admeasuring about 00H 1.25R lying and situated at village Pennur, Taluka Mohol, District Solapur and Survey No.419/1 admeasuring about 01H 97R lying and situated at village Papti, Taluka Mohol, District Solapur and S.No.518/1 admeasuring about 00H 06R lying and situated at village Yevati, Taluka Mohol, District Solapur, more particularly described in Para No.5.4.4 of the Original Application.

¶59

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

¶60

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶61

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

¶62

Place : Pune Date: 18.09.2025

¶63

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

¶64

(OA No.1365/2023)

¶65

Page 6 of 6

¶66

[ANIL]

Bank of Maharashtra v. Parmeshwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Parmeshwar

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

Union Bank of India versus Dinesh Yashwant Kulkarni

Rbl Bank Limited versus Akhilesh Chandra

Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank versus Mr Shirish Alias Sidramappa Patil

Union Bank of India versus Subhash

Bank of India versus Eknath Dhawal

Union Bank of India versus Bapusaheb