Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Ravindra Ratanlal Morwal

DRT29 Oct 2025OA/174/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

At Aurangabad, the DRT allowed a bank's original application for recovery of Rs. 26,03,729.74 plus 8% simple annual interest from filing date, based on non-performance of loan terms and secured documents.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 26,03,729.74 with future interest at 8% p.a. simple; recovery secured by mortgage of Flat No. 23, Padampura, Aurangabad; recovery certificate issued; right to sell property grant

Union Bank of India versus Ravindra Ratanlal Morwal — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 26.09.2023 Registered on: 08.03.2024 Decided on: 29.10.2025 Duration: Y M D 02 01 03

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 174/2024

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 26,03,729.74/-

¶4

Union Bank of India,

¶5

A body corporate constituted under the under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970, having its registered office at 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai400021 & having branches amongst the other places

¶6

at Station Road, Aurangabad through its Authorized Person, Mrs. Amruta Ashokrao Ambore (Branch Manager), Age: 29 yrs., Occ.: Service, R/o. Station Road, Aurangabad 431005.

… Applicant

(OA No.174/2024)

Page 1 of 10

[AMBADAS]

Versus

1. Mr. Ravindra Ratanlal Morwal,

¶13

Age: Major, Occ.: Business R/o.: Flat No. 22, Stilt 2^nd Floor, Yash Residency, CTS No. 19920, Padampura, Aurangabad 431005.

¶14

2. Mrs. Anuradha Ravindra Morwal,

¶15

Age: Major, Occ.: Business R/o.: Flat No. 22, Stilt 2^nd Floor, Yash Residency, CTS No. 19920, Padampura, Aurangabad 431005.

¶16

…Defendants

¶17

APPEARANCES

¶18

For the Applicant For Defendants

¶19

Mr. K.D. Pande -Advocate None

¶20

JUDGMENT Delivered on 29.10.2025

¶21

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 26,03,729.74/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs, Three Thousand, Seven Hundred Twenty Four and Seventy Four Paisa only), along with future interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 26.09.2023, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶22

Brief facts of the application are as under:

(OA No.174/2024)

Page 2 of 10

[AMBADAS]

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendants No. 1 & 2 had approached and requested the Applicant Bank for Housing Loan Facility. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the Defendants, the Applicant Bank sanctioned Housing Loan Facility of Rs. 13,25,000/- vide sanction letter dated 22.12.2020 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for the aforesaid loan facility was @6.90% p.a. with monthly rests. The Defendants also agreed to pay additional interest @2% by way of liquidated damages in the event of any default in repayment. The applicant bank further states that, the defendant No. 1 & 2 had approached to the applicant bank for a mortgage loan facility and upon considering the request and need of the defendants, the applicant bank thereafter pleased to sanction a mortgage loan facility of Rs. 10,60,000/- vide it’s sanction letter dated 23.12.2020 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for the aforesaid loan facility was @7.90% p.a. with

(OA No.174/2024)

Page 3 of 10

[AMBADAS]

monthly rests. The Defendants also agreed to pay additional interest @2% by way of liquidated damages in the event of any

¶31

default in repayment.

¶32

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendant executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letters, hypothecation agreements, demand promissory notes, housing loan registered sale deed bearing daybook No. 72 dated 03.01.2015 etc., in favour of the

¶33

Applicant Bank

¶34

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendant No. 1 & 2 created first charge over their immovable property under registered sale deed bearing daybook No. 72 dated 03.01.2015 in favour of the Applicant Bank. The mortgage was created in respect of the following property-

¶35

All that piece and parcel of Flat No. 23 admeasuring carpet area 37.98 sq. mtrs., built-up area 40.28 sq. mtrs., on Stilt Second Floor

(OA No.174/2024)

Page 4 of 10

[AMBADAS]

in “ Yash Residency”, CTS No. 19920, situated at Padampura, Tq. And Dist. Aurangabad, which is bounded as under:

¶40

East: Flat No. 21 on Stilt 2^nd Floor, West: Flat No. 23 on Stilt 2^nd Floor, South: Building Parking & CTS No. 19921, North: Flat No. 17 & 18 on 2^nd Floor.

¶41

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 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 02.10.2022. Therefore on 07.09.2023 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.

(OA No.174/2024)

Page 5 of 10

[AMBADAS]

The defendants appeared in the matter and filed their written statement vide Exh. 9, inter alia, denying all the contentions raised by the applicant bank. The Defendants No. 1 and 2 submit that bank is guilty of several errors and unfair practices. They state that the bank wrongly charged an exorbitant interest rate of 8.85%, which is higher than the agreed rate, and illegally classified their loan as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA), meaning thereby the bank has no right to take action against their property. They also alleged that as a poor family (BPL/labourer), they are entitled to a PMAY housing subsidy that the bank failed to credit. Finally, they alleged that the bank made them sign blank documents without explaining the loan terms and hiding the fact that another arbitration case is already pending pertaining to the loan. They claimed that the bank misused their signatures on blank papers and never explained the loan terms or interest, which they say is excessive and against RBI rules. The bank’s claims are false and the application is liable to be dismissed.

(OA No.174/2024)

Page 6 of 10

[AMBADAS]

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Amruta Ashokrao Ambore, Branch Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Exh. A-1 to A-29 along with list of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶50

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and gone through the written notes of arguments filed by the applicant bank, written statement filed by the defendants as well as other material on record.

¶51

The above documentary evidence of the applicant bank clearly shows that the defendants have availed loan from the applicant bank and executed necessary bank documents in token thereof as referred above. Mere denial of the defendants is not sufficient to rebut the documentary as well as evidence affidavit of the bank. The defendants have failed to prove how the application is false and how the bank has obtained their signatures on blank papers. This OA has been filed when the defendants committed default in

(OA No.174/2024)

Page 7 of 10

[AMBADAS]

paying of loan amount and the loan account was declared NPA and hence, the applicant bank has cause of action to file the present OA. Therefore, from the above documentary evidence and arguments of the applicant, I come to the conclusion that the applicant bank has proved its case against the defendants.

¶56

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

¶57

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @8.85 % p.a. from the date of filing i.e. 26.09.2023 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 @ 8% per annum (simple) on outstanding amount, it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶58

ORDER

¶59

(A) Original Application No. 174/2024 is allowed with costs.

(OA No.174/2024)

Page 8 of 10

[AMBADAS]

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 26,03,729.74/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs, Three Thousand, Seven Hundred Twenty Four and Seventy Four Paisa only), along with future interest @ 8% per annum (simple), from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 26.09.2023 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 property vide documents Exh. A-12 and Exh. A-21 to A-24 in list of documents Exh. 5.

¶65

All that piece and parcel of Flat No. 23 admeasuring carpet area 37.98 sq. mtrs., built-up area 40.28 sq. mtrs., on Stilt Second Floor in “ Yash Residency”, CTS No. 19920, situated at Padampura, Tq. And Dist. Aurangabad, which is bounded as under:

¶66

East: Flat No. 21 on Stilt 2^nd Floor, West: Flat No. 23 on Stilt 2^nd Floor, South: Building Parking & CTS No. 19921, North: Flat No. 17 & 18 on 2^nd Floor.

(OA No.174/2024)

Page 9 of 10

[AMBADAS]

(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/Pronounced in open court. (Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Place: Aurangabad Presiding Officer Date:. 29.10.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶75

(OA No.174/2024)

¶76

Page 10 of 10

¶77

[AMBADAS]

Union Bank of India v. Ravindra Ratanlal Morwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Ravindra Ratanlal Morwal

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

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Anil Bhausaheb Kadam

Sumit Pavankumar Jain versus State Bank of India

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/s Zorco Organic Manures

State Bank of India versus Laxman Mahadev Ulekar

Bank of Maharashtra versus Nasrin Nashir Shaikh

Union Bank of India versus Shashikant Nandkumar Dhamdhere