Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Poonam Navnath Andhale

DRT4 Oct 2025OA/137/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Bank of Maharashtra's claim against the borrower and guarantor for a loan default, granting principal recovery with adjusted future interest and a charge over mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Ordered defendants to pay Rs. 1,18,96,991.97 plus future interest at 9% p.a. from 31.12.2022; ordered issue of Recovery Certificate; granted right to sell mortgaged property.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Poonam Navnath Andhale — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 31.12.2022 Registered on: 06.11.2023 Decided on: 04.10.2025 Duration: Y M D 02 09 04

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 137/2023

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 1,18,96,991.97/-

¶4

Bank of Maharashtra ,

¶5

A Body Corporate constituted under the provisions of Banking Companies (Acquisition and 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 Samantray Age: 36 years, Occ.: Service as Chief Manager with Bank of Maharashtra, Sangamner Branch, District Ahmednagar, R/o.: Ahmednagar

… Applicant

Versus

(OA No.137/2023)

Page 1 of 9

[AMBADAS]

1. Poonam Navnath Andhale Proprietor Vatmadevi Stone Crushers, Age: Major, Occi.: Business, R/o.: Sonashi, Post Nanajdumala, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar

¶12

2. Somnath Raoba Gite

¶13

Age: 59 years, Occupation: Business, R/o.: At Sanapvasti, At Post Sanoshi, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar

¶14

…Defendants

¶15

APPEARANCES

¶16

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

¶17

For the Applicant For Defendants

¶18

JUDGMENT Delivered on 04.10.2025

¶19

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,18,96,991.97/- (Rupees One Crore, Eighteen Lacs, Ninety Six Thousand, Nine Hundred Ninety One and Ninety Seven Paisa only), along with future interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 31.12.2022, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶20

Brief facts of the application are as under:

(OA No.137/2023)

Page 2 of 9

[AMBADAS]

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendant No. 1 had approached and requested the Applicant Bank with a request to sanction cash credit facility. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the Defendant, the Applicant Bank sanctioned cash credit facility of Rs. 50,00,000/- vide, sanction letter dated 27.06.2018 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest was @ 12% p.a. with monthly rests. The Defendants also agreed to pay additional interest by way of liquidated damages in the event of any default in repayment.

¶25

Thereafter the applicant bank states that, the Cash Credit Facility availed b the defendant No. 1 has become overdrawn and as per the request made by the defendant No. 1 and shown her inability to pay the same, as such the overdue amount of Rs. 11,61,808/was converted by the applicant bank into a separate facility under FITL scheme (Term Loan) vide sanction letter dated 30.01.2019. The agreed interest was @9% p.a. with monthly rests. The

(OA No.137/2023)

Page 3 of 9

[AMBADAS]

Defendants also agreed to pay additional interest by way of liquidated damages in the event of any default in repayment.

¶31

The applicant bank states that, the defendant as a borrower approached to the applicant bank by filing application with a request to sanction Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme to provide liquidity to meet operational liabilities and restart the business after unprecedented situated emerging out of Covid-19 of Rs. 38,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 08.12.2020. The agreed interest was @7.50% p.a. with monthly rest. The Defendants also agreed to pay additional interest @ 2% by way of liquidated damages in the event of any default in repayment.

¶32

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendants executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letters, demand promissory notes, registered title deed bearing daybook nos. 1761/2018 & 3669/2020 dated 28.06.2018 & 08.12.2020 and hypothecation

(OA No.137/2023)

Page 4 of 9

[AMBADAS]

agreements etc. Additionally defendant No. 2 stood as guarantor

¶37

for defendant no. 1 and executed deed of guarantee on 30.06.2018

¶38

& 08.12.2020 in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶39

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendants executed registered title deed bearing daybook nos. 1761/2018 & 3669/2020 dated 28.06.2018 & 08.12.2020 respectively in respect of following property:

¶40

All that piece and parcel of land survey No. 223/2, Milakat No. 444, situated Sanoshi, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar adm. 4000 square meters, which is bounded as under:

¶41

North: S. No. 224 of Rama Shankar Sanap, East: S. No. 228 of Raoba S. Gite West: S. No. 221 of Shankar Giri, South: S. No. 223/1 of Amit S. Nawale.

¶42

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

(OA No.137/2023)

Page 5 of 9

[AMBADAS]

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 31.01.2019. Therefore on 15.06.2021 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.

¶47

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were served through court commissioner. Hence, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 15.02.2025.

¶48

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

(OA No.137/2023)

Page 6 of 9

[AMBADAS]

Exh. A-1to A-25 along with list of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶53

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

¶54

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.

¶55

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

¶56

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @14.45% p.a. & @9.25 from the date of filing i.e. 31.12.2022 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 outstanding amount, it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

(OA No.137/2023)

Page 7 of 9

[AMBADAS]

ORDER

(A) Original Application No. 137/2023 is allowed with

¶62

costs.

¶63

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of 1,18,96,991.97/- (Rupees One Crore, Eighteen Lacs, Ninety Six Thousand, Nine Hundred Ninety One and Ninety Seven Paisa only), along with future interest @ 9 % per annum (simple) on outstanding amount from the date of filing of the O.A. i.e. 31.12.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶64

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the mortgage of the following immovable properties. title deed bearing daybook nos. 1761/2018 & 3669/2020 dated 28.06.2018 & 08.12.2020 at Exh. A-6 & A-16 respectively in the list of documents Exh. 5.

(OA No.137/2023)

Page 8 of 9

[AMBADAS]

All that piece and parcel of land survey No. 223/2, Milakat No. 444, situated Sanoshi, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar adm. 4000 square meters, which is bounded as under:

¶69

North: S. No. 224 of Rama Shankar Sanap, East: S. No. 228 of Raoba S. Gite West: S. No. 221 of Shankar Giri, South: S. No. 223/1 of Amit S. Nawale.

¶70

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

¶71

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶72

(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:.04.10.2025

¶76

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

¶77

(OA No.137/2023)

¶78

Page 9 of 9

¶79

[AMBADAS]

Bank of Maharashtra v. Poonam Navnath Andhale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Poonam Navnath Andhale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus Rehan Enterprises

Bank of Maharashtra versus Narayan Khandoji Budhwant

Union Bank of India versus Chandrakant Maruti Mohite

Canara Bank versus M/s a P Fasteners

Union Bank of India versus Rahul Abasaheb Jambhalkar

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