Allowed

Idbi Bank v. Tanaji

DRT26 Aug 2025OA/224/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application by IDBI Bank Ltd. for recovery of loan dues from three respondents. The bank claimed approximately Rs.31.82 lakhs for a Term Loan and KCC facility. The court adjusted the claim for excessive penal interest and granted payment of Rs.31.58 lakhs with reduced future interest.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to jointly and severally pay Rs.31,57,746/- with future interest; issue Recovery Certificate; declare mortgaged property available for realization.

Idbi Bank versus Tanaji — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 14.05.2022 Registered on: 18.02.2023 Decided on: 26.08.2025 Duration: Y M D 03 03 12

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE. (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.224/2023.

¶3

IDBI Bank LTD. ,

¶4

A Company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and a Company within the meaning of Section 2(20) of the Companies Act, 2013 having its registered office at IDBI Tower, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai-400 005 and having its one of the branch at Miraj Branch, Shri Krupa, C.S.No.4158/A, Maidan Datta Mandir, Miraj, District Sangli-416 410.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Mr. Tanaji Maruti Chavan Age 48 years, Occ.:- Agri.& Business, R/at Kadamwadi, Taluka Miraj, District- Sangli-416 418.

¶8

2. Ms. Mahadevi Appaso Kore Age 27 years, Occ.:- Agri.& Business,

¶9

3 . Mr. Rahul Appaso Kore Age 28 years, Occ.:- Agriculturist , 2&3 R/at – Janraowadi, Taluka Miraj, District- Sangli-416 418.

¶10

… Defendants

¶11

APPEARANCES

¶12

For the Applicant Mr. G. H. Bet i/b Mr. Nikhil Barsode - Advocate For the Defendants Ex parte. TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.31,82,337.10Ps.

(OA No.224/2023)

Page 1 of 5

[ANIL]

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 26^th August, 2025)

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed present application for recovery of aggregate sum of Rs.31,82,337.10Ps [ i.e. Rs.20,90,534.10Ps towards Term Loan A/c No.0537673100001557 and Rs.10,91,803/- towards KCC A/c No.0537651100002509] together with future interest @10.50% p.a. and @8.65% p.a. + Penal Interest @2% with monthly rests from the date of filing of the application till repayment /realization of entire dues from the defendants.

¶19

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶20

Defendant No.1 approached to the applicant bank on 06.06.2018 for a Term Loan of Rs.18,00,000/- for Grape Garden and on 29.11.2018 for Cash Credit Loans for Rs.7,50,000/- for Crop Loan & Crop Cultivation. Defendant Nos.2&3 supplemented as Guarantors.

¶21

Applicant Bank sanctioned Term Loan of Rs.18,00,000/- on 06.06.2018 and Kisan Cash Credit of Rs.7,50,000/- on 30.11.2018 to Defendant No.1 with Guarantee of Defendant No.2 and 3, on certain terms and conditions.

¶22

Defendant Nos.1 to 3 have voluntarily executed loan and security documents in consideration of both the loans in favour of the applicant bank as mentioned in Para No.5.6 of the Original Application.

¶23

Defendant No.1 executed Declarative Mortgage on 07.06.2018 & 30.11.2018 and created first charge security interest in favor of

(OA No.224/2023)

Page 2 of 5

[ANIL]

IDBI Bank Ltd on Agri. Land area 1 H 72 Are out of Gat No. 251, at village Kadamwadi, Taluka Miraj, District Sangli to secure Loan Term Loan of Rs.18 lakhs, which is duly registered at Sr.No.226/2018 & Sr.No.456/2018 before SRO No.2 at Miaj No.2.

¶28

It is contended that initially the loan accounts were operated in satisfactory manner and thereafter, the defendants have hardly shown any interest in repayment of both the loans. Time and again defendants were called upon to adhere with repayment schedule but defendants only assured remittance in shortest possible days but hopelessly failed in own promises and hence, the accounts of defendants with the Applicant Bank turned Non-Performing Assets on 30.11.2021 as per the Reserve Bank of India norms.

¶29

Thereafter, the Applicant Bank has issued Loan Recall Notice dated 22.12.2021 for both the loan accounts separately calling upon the borrower to liquidate entire dues. However, the Defendants have given only false promises, failed to regularize the accounts and neglected to comply with the demands.

¶30

Hence, this application is filed.

¶31

Defendant Nos.1 to 3 failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against them vide Order dated 10.06.2025 & 01.07.2025 passed below Application (Exh.-1).

¶32

The Applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exh-6) of Mr. Jayant Gandhe, Authorized Signatory, which supports the case of the applicant elucidated in the application.

(OA No.224/2023)

Page 3 of 5

[ANIL]

The Applicant Bank has produced in evidence the original loan documents at Exhs.-AW-1 to AW-17, which corroborate the case of the Applicant Bank.

¶37

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

¶38

Since the defendants failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Applicant Bank. Therefore, the Applicant Bank is entitled for reliefs as claimed.

¶39

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.

¶40

The applicant bank has claimed Penal Interest of Rs.24,591/towards Term Loan Account, which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.31,82,337.10Ps is reduced to Rs.31,57,746/ -.

¶41

The Applicant Bank has claimed future interest @10.50% p.a. and @8.65% p.a. + 2% penal interest towards Term Loan and KCC Loan, respectively. Considering the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% p.a. (simple) for Term Loan Account and @8.65% p.a. (as claimed) for KCC Loan Account, it would be just and reasonable.

(OA No.224/2023)

Page 4 of 5

[ANIL]

12. Hence, I pass the following order: -

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(A) Original Application No.224/2023 is allowed with costs.

¶48

(B) Defendant Nos.1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay Rs.31,57,746/- [ i.e. Rs.20,65,943/- towards Term Loan A/c No. 0537673100001557 and Rs.10,91,803/- towards KCC Loan A/c No. 0537651100002509 ] to the Applicant Bank with future interest @9% p.a. (simple) for Term Loan Account and @8.65% for KCC Loan Account from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 14.05.2022 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶49

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by Declarative Mortgage of the immovable property i.e. Agri. Land area 01H 72Are out of Gat No.251, at village Kadamwadi, Taluka Miraj, District Sangli, owned by Defendant No.1, which is duly registered at Sr. No.226/2018 on 07.06.2018 and Sr.No.456/2018 on 30.11.2018 respectively before SRO No.2 at Miraj No.2, in favour of the applicant bank, more particularly described in Para No.5.6 of the Original Application.

¶50

(D) The Applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged property to recover its dues.

¶51

(D) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶52

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

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

Place: Pune Date: 26.08.2025

¶55

(Dilip G. Murumkar) Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶56

(OA No.224/2023)

¶57

Page 5 of 5

¶58

[ANIL]

Idbi Bank v. Tanaji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idbi Bank v. Tanaji

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

Canara Bank versus Ms Fatima Cellulars Prop. Mr. Farid Gaus MD Dastagir

Uco Bank versus Ganesh Nagave

Idbi Bank versus Mahesh

Bank of India versus Hanumant Mali

Uco Bank versus Hirabai Shinde

Federal Bank versus Ganpati Kumbhar