Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Balaji Kailas Devre

DRT17 Jul 2025OA/167/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of a housing loan defaulting. The Tribunal directed the respondent to pay the principal amount with future simple interest, secured by the mortgaged flat, and authorized the sale of property and issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Directed payment of Rs. 23,49,926.44 with future interest; secured by mortgage; authorized sale of mortgaged property; recovery certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus Balaji Kailas Devre — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 09.08.2023 Registered on: 06.03.2024 Decided on: 17.07.2025 Duration: Y M D 01 04 11

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Shri Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding officer)

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs.23,49,926.44 PS.

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.167/2024

¶5

Union Bank of India ,

¶6

a body corporate constituted under the Banking

¶7

Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of undertakings) Act, 1970 having it's Registered Office at 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 & having branches amongst

¶8

the other places at Main Branch, Aurangabad through it’s Power of Attorney, Mr. Santosh Kumar Thakur s/o. Mahabir thakur, (Chief Manager), Age: 46 yrs., Occ.: Service, R/o. Paithan

¶9

… Applicant

¶10

Gate, Aurangabad 431 001

¶11

[DAK] (OA No.167/2024) Page 1 of 8

¶12

Versus

¶13

Mr. Balaji Kailas Devre Age: Major, Occu.: Business R/o: At Post Jamdi Jahangir, Tq. Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad AND / OR Mr. Balaji Kailas Devre Age: Major, Occu.: Business R/o: Flat No. B-16, Radhakrushna Apartment, Gut No. 77, Behind MIT College, Defendant Ahilyabai Holkar Chowk, Satara, T Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad

¶14

APPEARANCES

¶15

For the Applicant Mr. K. D. Pande - Advocate For Defendant Exparte

¶16

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 17^th July, 2025)

¶17

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs. 23,49,926.44 PS (Rs. Twenty Three Lacs Forty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Six & Forty Four Ps Only) together with interest 8.85% per annum

¶18

[DAK] (OA No.167/2024) Page 2 of 8

¶19

with monthly rests upon Housing loan from 14.07.2023 till the full realization of the entire dues and costs from the defendant.

¶20

Brief facts of the application are as under :

¶21

The Defendant had approached to the Applicant Bank and requested to sanction a Housing Loan facility. Upon considering the representations/requests and need of the defendant, the Applicant Bank sanctioned Housing Loan of Rs. 22,50,000/- vide sanction letter dated 07.12.2022 on certain terms & conditions. The agreed rate of interest was @ 8.85 % per annum with monthly rests. The defendant also agreed to pay an additional interest by way of liquidated damages @ 2% p.a. in case of default in repayment.

¶22

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendant executed loan documents in favour of the applicant bank namely sanction letter, letter of continuity, demand promissory note for Rs.22,50,000/-, interest agreement, letter of undertaking, housing loan agreement dated 07.12.2022 and registered simple mortgage deed bearing daybook no.9373 dated 30.12.2022, vide list of documents

¶23

[DAK] (OA No.167/2024) Page 3 of 8

¶24

Exh.5.

¶25

The applicant bank contended that to secure the Housing loan facility, the defendant has equitable mortgaged his immovable property by depositing registered sale deed bearing daybook no. 9373 dated 30.12.2022 in favour of the applicant bank in respect of following property.

¶26

All that piece & parcel of Flat No. B-16 admeasuring 68.133 sq.mtrs. in Radhakrushna Apartment at Plot No. 54, 55, 56, 57, 60 & 61 out of Gut No. 77, Behind MIT College, Satara, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad which is bounded as under-

¶27

East : Flat No. B-15

¶28

West : Flat No. A-15

¶29

South : Internal Road of Apartment

¶30

North : Flat No. B-17

¶31

The applicant bank contended that the defendant has failed to keep his promise and commitments agreed by him with regard to due repayment of the loan amount. The defendant failed to operate the loan account properly within a year

¶32

[DAK] (OA No.167/2024) Page 4 of 8

¶33

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 non-performing asset on 08.05.2023. Therefore on 27.07.2023, the applicant Bank issued legal notice to the defendant through their Advocate. Despite service of Notice, the defendant failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶34

The defendant failed to appear in the matter though he was duly served, hence the defendant proceeded exparte as per order dated 28.03.2025.

¶35

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of Evidence (Exhibit-4) of Santosh Kumar Thakur s/o. Mahabir Thakur, Senior Manager of the applicant Bank and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Exh. A-1 to A-14, along with list of documents Exh. 5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶36

[DAK] (OA No.167/2024) Page 5 of 8

¶37

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

¶38

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 reliefs as claimed.

¶39

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @ 8.85% per annum with monthly rests compoundable from 14.07.2023 till the full realization of the entire dues and costs from the defendant. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @ 8.85% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶40

Hence, I pass the following order.

¶41

ORDER

¶42

(A) Original Application No.167/2024 is allowed with costs.

¶43

(B) Defendant are ordered and directed to pay jointly and severally to the applicant the aggregate sum of Rs. 23,49,926.44 PS (Rs. Twenty Three Lacs Forty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Six

¶44

[DAK] (OA No.167/2024) Page 6 of 8

¶45

& Forty Four Ps Only) alongwith future interest @ 8.85% per annum (simple) from 09.08.2023 till full payment/realization of the amount.

¶46

¶47

All that piece & parcel of Flat No. B-16 admeasuring 68.133 sq.mtrs. in Radhakrushna Apartment at Plot No. 54, 55, 56, 57, 60 & 61 out of Gut No. 77, Behind MIT College, Satara, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad which is bounded as underEast : Flat No. B-15

¶48

West : Flat No. A-15

¶49

South : Internal Road of Apartment North : Flat No. B-17

¶50

(D) The applicant bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged immovable properties, to recover its dues.

¶51

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶52

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

¶53

[DAK] (OA No.167/2024) Page 7 of 8

¶54

applicant and defendant.

¶55

(G) File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

Place : Aurangabad. Date : 17.07.2025.

¶58

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

¶59

[DAK] (OA No.167/2024) Page 8 of 8

Union Bank of India v. Balaji Kailas Devre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Balaji Kailas Devre

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

Central Bank of India versus Bharti Santosh Pawar

Sushama Vijaykumar Patil versus Union Bank of India

Junaid Abdul Razzaque Hamdulay versus Icici Home Finance Company Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus Nitin Shivaji Jadhav

State Bank of India versus Tulshiram Abhiman Ajabe

Mrs Surekha Subhash Shelke versus Shubham Housing Development Finance Company Limited