Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Pralhad

DRT26 Sept 2025OA/266/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an ex-parte application filed by Bank of Maharashtra for recovery of a term loan and MKCC facility. The court adjusted the claim for penalty interest, granted future interest at 9% p.a., and mandated security by mortgage over the defendants' agricultural land.

What did the court decide?

The defendants were directed to pay Rs.27,78,814/- plus future interest at 9% p.a., secured by a mortgage on the mortgaged agricultural properties.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Pralhad — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 23.06.2022 Registered on: 18.02.2023 Decided on: 26.09.2025 Duration: Y M D 03 03 03

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE

¶3

(Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer)

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.266/2023.

¶5

Bank of Maharashtra ,

¶6

A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisitions & Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 having its Head Office at “Lokmangal” 1501, Shivajinagar, Pune-5 and Branch amongst other places at Jalochi, Baramati, District Pune-413 102.

¶7

… Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. Mr. Pralhad Sadashiv Gavade R/at- Parwadi, Tal. Baramati, District Pune-413 102.

¶10

2 . Mrs. Bharati Pralhad Gavade R/at- Parwadi, Tal. Baramati,

¶11

District Pune-413 102.

¶12

… Defendants

¶13

3 . Mr. Popat Sadashiv Gavade All R/at- Parwadi, Tal. Baramati, District Pune-413 102.

(OA No.266/2023)

Page 1 of 7

[ANIL]

APPEARANCES

For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶19

Advocate Sheetal Deole Ex-parte.

¶20

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs.28,71,381/-.

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

(Delivered on 26^th September, 2025)

¶23

1 The Applicant Bank has filed present application for recovery of sum of Rs.28,71,381/[i.e.Rs.25,48,863/towards Term Loan & Rs.3,22,518/- towards MKCC Loan] together with future interest thereon at the rate of @12.50% p.a. and @10.25%p.a. respectively till actual realization of amount from the Defendants.

¶24

2 Brief facts of the application are as under: Defendant Nos.1 to 3 approached applicant bank and requested

¶25

for a Term Loan of Rs.14,20,000/- for the purpose of installation of Pipeline, repair of Well, Land Development etc. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the guarantors for the Credit Facility availed by Defendant No.1. The applicant bank considered the request of the defendants and thereby sanctioned Term Loan of Rs.14,20,000/- on 19.05.2014, to Defendant No.1.

¶26

In order to secure the aforesaid Loan facilities, the defendants have executed certain loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank, as mentioned in Para Nos.5.6 of the Original Application. Defendant No.2 and 3 executed Guarantee Deed in favour of the applicant bank and thereby confirmed their liability as joint and several with Defendant No.1 on 26.05.2014.

(OA No.266/2023)

Page 2 of 7

[ANIL]

Defendant No.1 executed Registered Mortgage Deed in the office of Sub Registrar Kedgaon at Sr. No.2353/2014 on 22.05.2014 of the properties i.e.

¶31

(A) – All that piece and parcel of Agricultural Land in Gat No.194 admeasuring area 10H 39R + P.K. 05H 70R, total 16H 19R assessment is 05Rs.62Ps. situated at village Nimbodi, Taluka Baramati, District Pune, within the jurisdiction and Sub Registrar Kedgaon, Taluka Daund, District Pune;

¶32

Out of said Gat No.194 land admeasuring 0H .43R + P.K. 0H 10R, total 3H 13R belonging to the present borrower and Mortgagor No.1 Shri. Pralhad Sadashiv Gawade;

¶33

(B) – All that piece and parcel of land area admeasuring 9H 41R + P. K. 02H 60R total 12H 01R its assessment of 8 Rs.69Ps in Gat No.196 situated at village Nimbodi, Tal. Daund, District Pune within the jurisdiction of Kedgaon;

¶34

Out of above Gat No.196 land admeasuring 01H 17R + P.K. 0H 32R total 01H 49R belonging to the borrower and mortgagor Pralhad Sadashiv Gavade, more particularly described in Schedule in Para No.5.9 of the Original Application.

¶35

3 Defendant Nos.1 to 3 again approached the applicant bank and requested for MKCC of Rs.2,85,000/- for the purpose of Mahabank Kissan Credit Card. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 offered themselves as Guarantors for the MKCC availed by Defendant No.1 from the applicant bank.

(OA No.266/2023)

Page 3 of 7

[ANIL]

Applicant bank considered the request of the defendants and sanctioned MKCC Limit up to Rs.2,85,000/- on 31.05.2016, on certain terms and conditions.

¶40

In order to secure the aforesaid Loan facilities, the defendants have executed certain loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank, as mentioned in Para Nos.5.14 of the Original Application. Defendant No.2 and 3 executed Guarantee Deed in favour of the applicant bank and thereby confirmed their liability as joint and several with Defendant No.1 on 31.05.2016.

¶41

Defendant No.1 has also executed Hypothecation Agreement in favour of the applicant bank and thereby hypothecated movable property standing crop to be grown on the Herds/Flock/Fish Catch/ Silk Worms and Cocoons etc. The tools equipment/Fixture/Boats/ Machines, Tractor/Power Tiller Tube Well, Electric Motors/ Diesel Engine and other movables connected with and relating to farming/ rearing of cattle and / or Flock/ Fishing/Sericulture, as mentioned in Para Nos.5.8 & 5.16 of the Original Application.

¶42

4 Applicant Bank contended that after availing Term Loan Facility and MKCC Loan facility, the defendants failed and neglected to pay outstanding amount and comply with the terms and conditions in which the said facilities were granted to them. Therefore, the amount due in the loan accounts was repeatedly demanded by the applicant bank from the defendants. The defendants did not repay the said amount as originally agreed and subsequently assured. Therefore, the applicant bank issued Recall Notice dated 22.04.2022 through its Panel Advocate. However, in spite of sending and receipt of the

(OA No.266/2023)

Page 4 of 7

[ANIL]

notices, the defendants failed to pay the amount of their credit facilities and ignored his responsibility to pay the dues. Hence, this application is filed.

¶47

5 Defendant Nos.1 to 3 have failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against them vide Order dated 25.06.2025 passed below the Application (Exh.-01).

¶48

6 The Applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of Mr. Atanu Bose, Chief Manager & produced on record the Loan Transaction documents (Exh.10) at Exhibits.AW-1 to AW-20, which corroborates the case of the Applicant Bank.

¶49

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

¶50

8 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.

¶51

9 The Applicant Bank has claimed relief in respect of hypothecated assets, as mentioned in Para No.5.8 & 5.16 of the Original Application. However, there is no detailed description with respect to hypothecated vehicle/assets. Therefore, the relief in terms of hypothecated vehicle/ assets cannot be granted.

¶52

10 The Applicant Bank has claimed arrears of Penalty interest of Rs.81,522/- for Term Loan A/c and Rs.11,045/- for MKCC Account (Total Rs.92,567/-) and the same are required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.28,71,381/- is reduced to Rs.27,78,814 /- .

(OA No.266/2023)

Page 5 of 7

[ANIL]

11 The Applicant Bank has claimed future interest @12.50% p.a . for the Term loan facility & @10.25 p.a. for MKCC Loan Facility. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% p.a. (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶57

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶58

ORDER

¶59

(A) Original Application No.266/2023 is allowed with costs.

¶60

(B) Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay an aggregate sum of Rs.27,78,814 / - (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Fourteen only) [i.e. Rs.24,67,341/- towards Term Loan and Rs.3,11,473/- towards MKCC Loan Account] with future interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 23.06.2022 till payment /realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order, to the Applicant Bank.

¶61

¶62

(i) All that piece and parcel of Agricultural Land in Gat No.194 admeasuring area 10H 39R + P.K. 05H 70R, total 16H 19R assessment is 05Rs.62Ps. situated at village Nimbodi, Taluka Baramati, District Pune, within the jurisdiction and Sub Registrar Kedgaon, Taluka Daund, District Pune;

¶63

Out of said Gat No.194 land admeasuring 0H .43R + P.K. 0H 10R, total 3H 13R belonging to the present borrower and Mortgagor No.1 Shri. Pralhad Sadashiv Gawade;

(OA No.266/2023)

Page 6 of 7

[ANIL]

(ii)- All that piece and parcel of land area admeasuring 9H 41R + P. K. 02H 60R total 12H 01R its assessment of 8 Rs.69Ps in Gat No.196 situated at village Nimbodi, Tal. Daund, District Pune within the jurisdiction of Kedgaon;

¶68

¶69

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

¶70

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶71

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

¶72

Sd/(Dilip G. Murumkar) Place : Pune Presiding Officer, Date: 26.09.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶73

(OA No.266/2023)

¶74

Page 7 of 7

¶75

[ANIL]

Bank of Maharashtra v. Pralhad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Pralhad

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

Yes Bank versus Pratik Hemant Bendre

Federal Bank versus Kiran

Ms Hatimi Steels Through Proprietor Amit Jain versus State Bank of India

Federal Bank versus Chandrakant More

Bank of India versus Shanti Natural Health Centre

Union Bank of India versus Mallikarjun Sanadani