Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/S City Enterprises

DRT22 Sept 2025OA/152/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues. The court validated the claim amount and modified the future interest rate to 9% per annum, granting a charge over hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

The respondents jointly and severally to pay Rs. 24,83,372/- with future interest @ 9% p.a. simple; charge declared over hypothecated properties allowing sale for recovery.

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S City Enterprises — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 08.02.2023 Registered on: 17.11.2023 Decided on: 22.09.2025 Duration: Y M D 02 07 14

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 152/2023

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 24,83,372/-

¶4

Bank of Maharashtra,

¶5

A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act V of 1970, Having its Head Office at “Lokmangal”, 1501, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411 005 and branches amongst the other places at Sawarkar Chowk, Aurangabad through its Authorized Person, Mr. Ashwin Baba Ganvir (Senior Manager), Age: 32 yrs., Occu: Service, R/o. Sawarkar Chowk, Aurangabad.

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s. City Enterprises, Through its Proprietor Mr. Pritesh Aubry Charles, Age: Major, Occ.: Business R/o.: Plot No. 29, Shivshankar Nagar, Near Aman Vishwa High School,

(OA No.152/2023)

Page 1 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad 431005.

¶13

Pritesh Aubry Charles, Age: Major, Occ.: Business R/o.: Plot No. 29, Shivshankar Nagar, Near Aman Vishwa High School, …Defendants Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad 431005.

¶14

APPEARANCES

¶15

For the Applicant Mr. K. D. Pande -Advocate For Defendants Ex-parte

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Delivered on 22.09.2025

¶18

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 24,83,372/- (Rupees Twenty four lacs, Eighty Three thousand, Three Hundred Seven two only), along with further interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 08.02.2023, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶19

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶20

The applicant bank states that, defendant No. 2 being proprietor of Defendant No. 1 approached the applicant bank seeking

(OA No.152/2023)

Page 2 of 8

[AMBADAS]

financial assistance in the form of Term loan facility & Cash Credit Facility. Upon scrutiny of the submitted documents, the applicant bank sanctioned Term loan facility of Rs. 16,00,000/- & Cash Credit Facility of Rs. 4,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 18.07.2020. The agreed rate of interest for Term loan facility was @9.95% p.a. & for Cash Credit Facility was @ 9.55% p.a. with monthly rests. The defendants also agreed to pay an additional interest @ 2% by way of liquidated damages in case of default in repayment.

¶25

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendants executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letter, deed of hypothecation, demand promissory notes, letter of proprietorship, etc., in favour of the Applicant Bank.

(OA No.152/2023)

Page 3 of 8

[AMBADAS]

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the

¶30

loan facilities sanctioned, the Defendants executed deed of Hypothecation, thereby hypothecating present and future movables, plants and machineries, goods, raw materials, items, inventories, stocks in process, semi-finished and finished goods, stores and spares (consumables), stock in trade, goods in process, movables in transit, assets, vehicles, goodwill, trademarks, copyrights, patents, tangible and intangible assets, contracts and agreements, outstanding monies, claims bills, receivable, book debs (due or to become due), and all rights, titles, and interest of

¶31

the borrower.

¶32

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

(OA No.152/2023)

Page 4 of 8

[AMBADAS]

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 19.06.2021. Therefore, on 17.12.2022 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.

¶37

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were served through summons. Hence, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 21.03.2024.

¶38

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Mr. Ashwin Baba Ganvir, Senior Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Exh. A-1 to A-13 along with list of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

(OA No.152/2023)

Page 5 of 8

[AMBADAS]

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

¶43

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.

¶44

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

¶45

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @9.55% p.a. & @9.95% p.a. from the date of filing i.e. 08.02.2023 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.

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(A) Original Application No. 152/2023 is allowed with costs.

(OA No.152/2023)

Page 6 of 8

[AMBADAS]

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 24,83,372/- (Rupees Twenty four lacs, Eighty Three thousand, Three Hundred Seven two only), along with future interest @ 9% per annum (simple) on outstanding amount from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 08.02.2023 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶52

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the present and future movables, plants and machineries, goods, raw materials, items, inventories, stocks in process, semi-finished and finished goods, stores and spares (consumables), stock in trade, goods in process, movables in transit, assets, vehicles, goodwill, trademarks, copyrights, patents, tangible and intangible assets, contracts and agreements, outstanding monies, claims bills, receivable, book debs (due or to become due), and all rights, titles, and interest of the borrower.

(OA No.152/2023)

Page 7 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Vide hypothecation agreement dated 22.07.2020 at Exh.

¶57

A-5 and A-8 in list of documents Exh. 5.

¶58

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the hypothecated

¶59

articles/goods, to recover its dues.

¶60

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶61

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

¶62

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶63

Sd/Pronounced in open court. (Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Place: Aurangabad Presiding Officer Date:. 22.09.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶64

(OA No.152/2023)

¶65

Page 8 of 8

¶66

[AMBADAS]

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/S City Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/S City Enterprises

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

Idbi Bank versus Anjali Sanjay Kulkarni

Canara Bank versus Sahadev Vishwanath Nimbhore

Maharastra Gramin Bank versus Bhimashankar Gurunathappa Bawage

Canara Bank versus Haider Amir Jakate

Union Bank of India versus Changdeo Sahebrao Mhaske (Deceased)

Bank of Baroda versus Pradnya Shrirang Mule