Allowed

Yes Bank v. Mukund Appasaheb Devkate

DRT9 Oct 2025OA/262/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Yes Bank Limited for recovery of dues from two respondents. The court verified loan documents produced on record, adjusted amounts for unrecoverable charges, and awarded the principal along with future interest at a reduced rate.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay Rs.33,58,556 with future interest at 9% per annum; right to sell hypothecated asset granted; Recovery Certificate issued.

Yes Bank versus Mukund Appasaheb Devkate — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on .. 01.03.2022 Registered on .. 01.04.2022 Decided on .. 09.10.2025 Duration .. Y—M—D 03--07--08

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 262/2022.

¶3

Yes Bank Limited,

¶4

A Banking Company within the meaning of Section 5 C of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and constituted under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at 9^th Floor, Discovery of India, Nehru Centre, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 018 and Branch Office at – Erandawana, Pune 410 004.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 Mukund Appasaheb Devkate, At Post Irle Tulsidas Nagar, Taluka Barshi, District Solapur 413 412.

¶8

2 Shital Mukund Devkate, At Post Irle Tulsidas Nagar, Taluka Barshi, District Solapur 413 412.

¶9

… Defendants

¶10

Appearances :-

¶11

For Applicant Advocate Pradip Yadav. For Defendants Ex parte.

¶12

Sanap ( OA No. 262/2022 ) 1 of 5

¶13

Total Claim Amount – Rs.36,74,007=78

¶14

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 09^th October, 2025)

¶15

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.36,74,007=78 together with future interest @11.50% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶16

Brief facts of the application are as under :-

¶17

Defendant No.1 is borrower and defendant No.2 is coborrower. As per the loan application of defendant Nos.1 and 2, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Construction Equipment loan facility of Rs.41,00,000/- to the defendants No.1 on 20.05.2019.

¶18

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants have executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank. The defendants have also hypothecated Smart 210 Hydralic Excavator in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶19

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Hence, on 13.10.2021, the applicant Bank issued Recall Notice to the defendants.

¶20

Sanap ( OA No. 262/2022 ) 2 of 5

¶21

Despite service of Notice, the defendants failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank.

¶22

Hence, this application is filed.

¶23

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against the defendants as per Order dated 30.08.2024 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶24

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Aadesh Shintre, Authorized Representative of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1 to AW-6 along with list (Exhibit 9), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

The applicant Bank has claimed Cheque Bounce Charges of Rs.8,909/- and other charges of Rs.3,06,542=78 total of Rs.3,15,451=78, which cannot be granted and the same is

¶28

Sanap ( OA No. 262/2022 ) 3 of 5

¶29

required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.36,74,007=78 is reduced to Rs.33,58,556/-.

¶30

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @11.50% 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.

¶31

Hence, I pass the following order.

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

A} Original Application No. 262/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶34

B} Defendant Nos.1 and 2 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.33,58,556/(Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Six only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 01.03.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶35

C} The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the hypothecation in respect of Smart 210 Hydralic Excavator, more particularly described in the Para No. 5.3 of the Original Application.

¶36

Sanap ( OA No. 262/2022 ) 4 of 5

¶37

D} The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the hypothecated property to recover its dues.

¶38

E} Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶39

F} The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant and defendants.

¶40

Sd/( Dilip G. Murumkar ) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 09.10.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶41

Sanap ( OA No. 262/2022 ) 5 of 5

Yes Bank v. Mukund Appasaheb Devkate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yes Bank v. Mukund Appasaheb Devkate

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

Union Bank of India versus Manik

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Vvr Infra Logistics Pvt. Ltd.

Bank of India versus Unique Enterprises Prop. Mrs. Nilofar Iliyas Shaikh

Bank of India versus Anna Sondage

State Bank of India versus Somnath Khandekar

Bank of India versus Sampat