Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Babasaheb Arun Garud

DRT23 Dec 2025OA/253/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application filed by Bank of Maharashtra against borrowers for recovery of USD 2,137,509.91 arising from a term loan facility default. The court, hearing the case ex-parte against absent defendants, allowed the application and directed joint and several payment of the principal amount along with future interest at 9% p.a. (simple) secured by the mortgaged row house property.

What did the court decide?

Direct payment of Rs. 21,37,509.91 with future interest @ 9% p.a. (simple); enforcement via sale of mortgaged property; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Babasaheb Arun Garud — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 15.03.2025 Registered on: 24.04.2025 Decided on: 23.12.2025 Duration: Y M D 00 09 08

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 253/2025

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 21,37,509.91/-

¶4

Bank of Maharashtra ,

¶5

A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking

¶6

Companies (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, 5 of

¶7

1970, carrying on business & Having its Head Office at “Lokmangal”, 1501, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411 005

¶8

and Branch at Rahuri, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. Through its Authorized officer, Shri. Prashant Ashok Salve, Age; Major, Occu: Service, Working as Sr. Manager, Branch at Rahuri, Taluka

¶9

Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar.

… Applicant

Versus

(OA No.253/2025)

Page 1 of 8

[AMBADAS]

1. Babasaheb Arun Garud,

¶16

Age: Major, Occupation: Service, R/o.: Tanpure Wadi,, Rahuri Bk. Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar – 413705. AND

¶17

Row House No. 14, Plot No. 14, Sr. No. 583/1/2/14, Situated at Anandsagar Park, Rahuri Bk, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar.

¶18

2. Kalpana Babasaheb Garud,

¶19

Age: Major, Occupation: Housewife, R/o.: Tanpure Wadi,, Rahuri Bk. Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar – 413705. AND

¶20

Row House No. 14, Plot No. 14, Sr. No. 583/1/2/14, Situated at Anandsagar Park, Rahuri Bk, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar.

¶21

…Defendants

¶22

APPEARANCES

¶23

For the Applicant Mr. Atul A. Mishra -Advocate For Defendants Ex-parte

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Delivered on 23.12.2025

¶26

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 21,37,509.91/- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs, Thirty Seven Thousand, Five Hundred Nine and Ninety One Paisa only), along with future interest from the date of filing of the

(OA No.253/2025)

Page 2 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Original Application, i.e., 15.03.2025, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶31

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶32

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendant No. 1 & 2 had approached and requested the Applicant Bank to sanction Term Loan Facility. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the Defendants, the Applicant Bank sanctioned Term Loan Facility of Rs. 17,00,000/- for purchase of Row House vide, sanction letter dated 23.02.2018 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for aforesaid loan facilities was @8.65% 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.

¶33

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendants executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letter, demand promissory note, sale

(OA No.253/2025)

Page 3 of 8

[AMBADAS]

deed bearing daybook no. 2286/2018 dated 10.07.2018 Housing

¶38

loan agreement etc., in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶39

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendants executed sale deed bearing daybook no. 2286/2018 dated 10.07.2018 in respect of

¶40

following property:

¶41

All that piece and parcel of Row House No. 14, Plot o. 14, Sr. No. 583/1/2/14, Admeasuring 48.76 Sq. Mtr. Built up area onn ground floor 30.56 Sq. Mtr. & First floor 27.77 Sq. Mtr. Total built up 58.33 Sq. Mtr-situated at Anandsagar Park, Rahuri Bk. Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar, which is bounded as under:

¶42

East: Plot No. 13, South: Survey No. 283/2 West: Plot No. 15 North: 9 Mtr. road,

¶43

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

(OA No.253/2025)

Page 4 of 8

[AMBADAS]

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 30.01.2024. Therefore on 26.02.2024 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.

¶48

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were served. Hence, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 08.12.2025.

¶49

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Shri. Prashant Ashok Salve, Senior Manager of the applicant Bank and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Exh. AW-1(1) to AW-1(17) along with list of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

(OA No.253/2025)

Page 5 of 8

[AMBADAS]

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

¶54

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.

¶55

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

¶56

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing i.e. 15.03.2025 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% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶57

ORDER

¶58

(A) Original Application No. 253/2025 is allowed with costs.

(OA No.253/2025)

Page 6 of 8

[AMBADAS]

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 21,37,509.91/- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs, Thirty Seven Thousand, Five Hundred Nine and Ninety One Paisa only), along with future interest @ 9% per annum (simple), from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 15.03.2025 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶63

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the mortgage of the following immovable properties. Vide documents Annexure. AW-1/9 to AW-1/12 in the list of documents Exh. 5

¶64

¶65

East: Plot No. 13, South: Survey No. 283/2 West: Plot No. 15 North: 9 Mtr. road,

(OA No.253/2025)

Page 7 of 8

[AMBADAS]

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged

¶70

immovable property 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:.23.12.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶75

(OA No.253/2025)

¶76

Page 8 of 8

¶77

[AMBADAS]

Bank of Maharashtra v. Babasaheb Arun Garud

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Babasaheb Arun Garud

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

Canara Bank versus Akash Balasaheb Sonawane

State Bank of India versus Dinaram Babulal Chouhan

Hdfc Bank versus Kedareshwar Construction

Bank of India versus Sandip Asaram Varne

Bank of India versus Ganesh Gopichand Jadhav

Bank of Maharashtra versus Suraj Sopan Muthe