Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Rajendra

DRT19 Jun 2025OA/217/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed a recovery application filed by Bank of Maharashtra against a defaulter. The court reduced the claim amount by deducting penal interest and modified the claimed future interest rate to 9% per annum, directing the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendant to pay Rs.25,10,021/- along with future interest at 9% per annum from the date of application, and a Recovery Certificate to be issued.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Rajendra — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on .. 28.08.2021 Registered on .. 21.03.2022 Decided on .. 19.06.2025 Duration .. Y—M—D 03--09--21

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 217/2022.

¶3

Bank of Maharashtra,

¶4

Banking Company Incorporated under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act V of 1970, having its head office at ―Lokmangal‖, 1501, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411005 and one of its branch office at Yerwada.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rajendra Ramdas Sonawane, Prop. M/s Ankita Arts, Age Adult, Occ. Business, R/at – Sr. No. 02, Gaditak, Mother Terrasa Nagar, Behind Sargam Hotel, Yervada, Pune 411 006.

¶8

… Defendant

¶9

:- Appearances

¶10

For Applicant Advocate V.S. Tokekar. For Defendant Ex parte.

¶11

Total Claim Amount – Rs.25,71,386/-

¶12

Sanap ( OA No. 217/2022 ) 1 of 5

¶13

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 19^th June, 2025)

¶14

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.25,71,386/- together with future interest @11.70% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendant.

¶15

Brief facts of the application are as under :-

¶16

As per the loan application of the defendant, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Term loan facility of Rs.15,00,000/- to the defendant for business purpose for manufacturing of plastic and fiber statues vide Sanction Letter dated 18.06.2016.

¶17

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant executed loan and necessary security documents in favour of the applicant Bank along with deed of hypothecation of movables, stocks, equipment etc., in favour of the applicant Bank. The defendant has also executed Balance and Security Confirmation Letter on 25.06.2019 and thereby confirmed the balance outstanding in loan account.

¶18

The applicant Bank contended that the defendant committed defaults in payment of installments and failed

¶19

Sanap ( OA No. 217/2022 ) 2 of 5

¶20

to regularize the accounts. Hence, on 31.05.2017, the applicant Bank has classified the account of the defendant as Non Performing Asset in accordance with guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Therefore, on 27.05.2021, the applicant Bank issued Recall Notice to the defendant. Despite service of Notice, the defendant failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶21

The defendant failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against the defendant as per Order dated 08.04.2025 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶22

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Atanu Bose, Chief Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW1-1 to AW1-9 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶23

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

¶24

Since the defendant failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of the

¶25

Sanap ( OA No. 217/2022 ) 3 of 5

¶26

applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for reliefs as claimed.

¶27

The applicant Bank has claimed relief in respect of hypothecated assets. However, there is no detailed description with respect to the hypothecated assets, therefore, the relief in terms of hypothecated assets cannot be granted.

¶28

The applicant Bank has claimed Penal Interest of Rs.61,365/-, which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.25,71,386/- is reduced to Rs.25,10,021/-.

¶29

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @11.70% per annum. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶30

Hence, I pass the following order.

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

A} Original Application No. 217/2022 is allowed with proportionate costs.

¶33

B} The defendant shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.25,10,021/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Ten

¶34

Sanap ( OA No. 217/2022 ) 4 of 5

¶35

Thousand Twenty One only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 28.08.2021 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶36

C} Issue Recovery Certificate. D} The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant and defendant.

¶37

Sd/( Dilip G. Murumkar ) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 19.06.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶38

Sanap ( OA No. 217/2022 ) 5 of 5

Bank of Maharashtra v. Rajendra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Rajendra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punjab National Bank versus Nikhil Ghatkar

Hdfc Bank versus Guddu Chinchale

Federal Bank versus Dadaso Patil

Bank of India versus Madhukar Bhagwan Patil

Bank of India versus Daji Bandgar

Bank of India versus Mr. Vishal Sanjay Golande, Prop. of M/S. Vivere Colorito