Allowed

Canara Bank v. Sunita Ravindra Shelke

DRT23 Sept 2025OA/151/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs. 36.71 lakh principal along with future simple interest at 11% per annum, securing the amount against hypothecated assets where the defendant was absent.

What did the court decide?

Defendant to pay Rs. 36,71,753/- plus future simple interest at 11% per annum from 21.11.2017; recovery certificate issued; right to sell hypothecated goods.

Canara Bank versus Sunita Ravindra Shelke — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 21.11.2017 Registered on: 27.02.2018 Decided on: 23.09.2025 Duration: Y M D 07 10 02

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 151/2022

¶3

CANARA BANK,

¶4

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 36,71,753/-

¶5

A Body Corporate duly constituted under the Banking companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970, Having its Head Office at Bengaluru-560002 and amongst the other places as at Shrirampur Branch, 1^st Floor, Ramesh Market, Main Road, Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar, Through Power of Attorney Holder and Manager, Mr. Vilas Genubhau Waghole, Age: 32 years, Occu.: Service as Manager, Shrirampur Branch Ahmednagar, R/o. Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar. Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sunita Ravindra Shelke, Age: Major, Occ.: Business, R/o. At Post Wakadi, Tq. Rahata, …Defendant District Ahmednagar.

(OA No.151/2022)

Page 1 of 7

[AMBADAS]

APPEARANCES

For the Applicant For Defendant

¶13

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

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

Delivered on 23.09.2025

¶16

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 36,71,753/- (Rupees Thirty Six lacs, Seventy One Thousand, Seven Hundred Fifty Three only), along with future interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 21.11.2017, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendant.

¶17

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶18

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendant approached and requested the Applicant Bank for Cash Credit facility & Term loan facility. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the Defendant, the Applicant Bank sanctioned Cash Credit facility of Rs. 5,00,000/- & Term loan facility of Rs. 14,00,000/- vide

(OA No.151/2022)

Page 2 of 7

[AMBADAS]

sanction letter dated 23.10.2013 on certain terms and conditions.

¶23

The agreed rate of interest for the Cash Credit facility was

¶24

@12.45% p.m. with monthly rests & for Term loan facility was @ 13.45% p.a.with monthly rests. The Defendant also agreed to pay additional interest @2% by way of liquidated damages in the event of any default in repayment.

¶25

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendant executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letter, letter of undertaking, & hypothecation agreement etc., in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶26

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendant executed composite loan agreement on 06.01.2014 thereby hypothecating machinery, stocks and book debts etc.

¶27

The applicant bank contended that the defendant has failed to keep her promise and commitments agreed by her with regard to

(OA No.151/2022)

Page 3 of 7

[AMBADAS]

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 02.07.2016. Therefore, on 09.12.2019 the applicant bank issued legal notice to the defendant through their advocate. Despite service of Notices, the defendant failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶32

The defendant failed to appear in matter though she was duly served. Hence, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 15.02.2025.

¶33

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Vilas Genubhau Waghole, Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction

(OA No.151/2022)

Page 4 of 7

[AMBADAS]

documents as Exh. A-1 to A-16 along with list of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶38

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

¶39

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.

¶40

The applicant Bank has claimed charge over hypothecated properties of the borrower.

¶41

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @15.45% p. a. on term loan & @14.45% p.a. on open cash credit from the date of filing i.e. 21.11.2017 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 @ 11% per annum (simple) on outstanding amount, it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

(OA No.151/2022)

Page 5 of 7

[AMBADAS]

ORDER

(A) Original Application No. 151/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶47

(B) The defendant shall pay to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 36,71,753/- (Rupees Thirty Six lacs, Seventy One Thousand, Seven Hundred Fifty Three only), along with future interest @ 11% per annum (simple) on outstanding amount from the date of filing of the O.A. i.e. from 21.11.2017 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶48

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the hypothecation of machinery, stocks and book debts etc. vide composite loan agreement dated 06.01.2014 at Exh. A-4 and A-5 in list of documents Exh. 5.

¶49

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

¶50

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

(OA No.151/2022)

Page 6 of 7

[AMBADAS]

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

¶55

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

Pronounced in open court. Place: Aurangabad Date:.23.09.2025

¶58

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

¶59

(OA No.151/2022)

¶60

Page 7 of 7

¶61

[AMBADAS]

Canara Bank v. Sunita Ravindra Shelke

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Sunita Ravindra Shelke

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

Bank of Baroda versus Pradnya Shrirang Mule

State Bank of India versus Madhavrao Kishanrao Kshirsagar

Union Bank of India versus Lala Asaram Chavan

Icici Bank Limited versus Deepaksingh Harnamsingh Kala

Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) versus Javed Aanvar Shamashodyin Shaikh

Icici Bank Limited versus Ajit Shantaram Vaidya