Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/s. G P Trading

DRT27 Nov 2025OA/242/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Bank of Baroda's application for recovery of Rs. 26,68,350.84 against the defendants for default on overdraft facility, granting future interest at 9% p.a. and authority to sell hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 26,68,350.84 plus future interest at 9% per annum (simple) from filing date, with authority to sell hypothecated assets.

Bank of Baroda versus M/s. G P Trading — Arbitration | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 21.04.2022 Registered on: 15.07.2022 Decided on: 27.11.2025 Duration: Y M D 03 07 06

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 242/2022

¶3

Bank of Baroda ,

¶4

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 26,68,350.84/-

¶5

A body corporate constituted under the under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970, and having its Head Office at Mandavi, Baroda and Branch amongst of the other places at Savedi, Tq. and Dist. Ahmednagar through its Power of Attorney Mr. Vinod Govind Sutar (Senior Manager) Age: 39 yrs., Occ.: Service, R/o. Savedi, Tq. and Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶6

Versus

¶7

… Applicant

¶8

1. M/s. G.P. Trading Through its Proprietor, Mr. Sunil Madhukar Chabukswar, Age- Major, Occ.: Business, R/o. At Dethe vast, Aurangabad Road, Shendi, Ahmednagar-414601.

(OA No.242/2022)

Page 1 of 8

[AMBADAS]

2. Mr. Sunil Madhukar Chabukswar, Age- Major, Occ.: Business, R/o. At House No. 630, Aurangabad Road, Shendi, Ahmednagar-414601.

¶13

…Defendant

¶14

APPEARANCES

¶15

Mr. K. D. Pande - Advocate Ex-parte

¶16

For the Applicant For Defendants

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Delivered on 27.11.2025

¶19

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 26,68,350.84/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs, Sixty Eight Thousand, Three Hundred Fifty and Eighty Four paisa only), along with future interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 21.04.2022, until the date of realization

¶20

of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶21

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶22

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendant No. 2 being a proprietor of defendant No. 1 had approached and requested the Applicant Bank for Overdraft facility. Upon considering the

(OA No.242/2022)

Page 2 of 8

[AMBADAS]

request and financial needs of the Defendant, the Applicant Bank

¶27

Sanctioned Overdraft facility of Rs. 25,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 31.07.2018 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for the aforesaid loan facilities was @ 9.95% 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.

¶28

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendants executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letter, letter of continuity, hypothecation agreement, letter of sole proprietorship, demand promissory note, etc., in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶29

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the loan facilities sanctioned, the Defendants executed deed of Hypothecation, thereby hypothecating all the present and future book-debts, outstanding moneys, receivables, claims, bills

(OA No.242/2022)

Page 3 of 8

[AMBADAS]

contracts, engagements and securities which are now due and owing anytime hereafter during the continuance and all the tangible movable machinery and plant and crafts and the vehicles of the borrower together with spares, tools and accessories and other movables, etc., in favour of the applicant bank.

¶34

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 29.11.2021. Therefore, on 09.03.2022 the applicant bank issued legal notice to the defendants through their advocate. Despite service of Notice, the

(OA No.242/2022)

Page 4 of 8

[AMBADAS]

defendants failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶39

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were duly served. Hence, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 16.11.2023.

¶40

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Mr. Vinod Govind Sutar, Senior Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Exh. AW-1 to AW-15 along with list of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶41

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

¶42

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.

(OA No.242/2022)

Page 5 of 8

[AMBADAS]

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

¶47

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @ 9.95% p.a. from the date of filing i.e. 21.04.2022 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% (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(A) Original Application No. 242/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶50

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 26,68,350.84/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs, Sixty Eight Thousand, Three Hundred Fifty and Eighty Four paisa only), along with future interest @ 9% p.a. (simple), from the date of filing of the O.A. i.e. 21.04.2022 till full payment/realization of the

¶51

amount mentioned in this operative order.

(OA No.242/2022)

Page 6 of 8

[AMBADAS]

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by hypothecation of all the present and future book-debts, outstanding moneys, receivables, claims, bills contracts, engagements and securities which are now due and owing anytime hereafter during the continuance and all the tangible movable machinery and plant and crafts and the vehicles of the borrower together with spares, tools and accessories and other movables, vide hypothecation agreement at Exh. AW-9 in list of documents Exh. 5.

¶56

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the hypothecated articles/goods/vehicle etc., to recover its dues.

¶57

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

(OA No.242/2022)

Page 7 of 8

[AMBADAS]

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

¶64

Pronounced in open court. Place: Aurangabad Date:. 27.11.2025

¶65

(OA No.242/2022)

¶66

Page 8 of 8

¶67

[AMBADAS]

Bank of Baroda v. M/s. G P Trading

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/s. G P Trading

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus Yogesh Vishwasrao Pophale

Bank of Maharashtra versus Jijabrao Baburao Patil

Bank of Maharashtra versus Balaji Seeta Chamle

State Bank of India versus Vijaykumar Radhesam Badar

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Sarika Ganesh Bote

State Bank of India versus Vijay Gopalrao Patekar