Allowed

Bank of India v. Ramrao Dadarao Shelke

DRT12 Sept 2025OA/37/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed Bank of India's application for recovery of Rs. 42,50,109/- from borrowers assigned jointly and severally. Court reduced future interest rate to 9% p.a. and directed issue of recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 42,50,109/- plus future interest @ 9% p.a. from date of application. Defendants to be made personally liable. Recovery Certificate issued and hypothecation assets directe

Bank of India versus Ramrao Dadarao Shelke — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 29.12.2022 Registered on: 01.01.2024 Decided on: 12.09.2025 Duration: Y M D 02 08 13

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 37/2024

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 42,50,109/-

¶4

BANK OF INDIA,

¶5

A body corporate constituted under the provisions of Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act V of 1970, Having its Head Office at Star House, “C-5”, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai and Branch amongst other places at Aurangabad Branch, Mandip Towers, Maharshi Dayanand Chowk, Jalna Road, Aurangabad Through its Chief Manager & Power of Attorney Holder, Mr. Chandrakant Keshav Parate, Age: 57 years, Occ.: Service, R/o.: Aurangabad

Applicant

(OA No.37/2024)

Page 1 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Versus

Mr. Ramrao Dadarao Shelke, Age- Major, Occ.: Agriculture/Business, Proprietor M/s Gurukrupa Developers B-3, 2^nd Floor, G-Win, Bharat Bazar, Chikalthana MIDC Aurangabad R/o.: House No. 606, Near Maharudra High School, Kumbephal, Taluka and District Aurangabad

¶12

Mr. Pravin Ankushrao Thale, Age- 38 years, Occ.: Agriculture/Business, R/o. House No. 157, Mauje Takli Mali, Post Pimpri Raja, Taluka and District Aurangabad-431007. …Defendants APPEARANCES For the Applicant Mr. P. N. Kapadia - Advocate For Defendants Ex-parte

¶13

JUDGMENT Delivered on 12.09.2025

¶14

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 42,50,109/- (Rupees Forty Two Lacs, Fifty Thousand, One Hundred and Nine only), along with future interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e.,

(OA No.37/2024)

Page 2 of 8

[AMBADAS]

29.12.2022, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶19

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶20

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendant No. 1 had approached and requested the Applicant Bank for a Cash Credit Facility. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the Defendant, the Applicant Bank Sanctioned Cash Credit Facility of Rs. 30 lacs vide sanction letter dated 09.05.2017 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for the Cash Credit Facility was 11.30% p.a. with monthly rests. The Defendant also agreed to pay additional interest by way of liquidated damages in the event of any default in repayment.

¶21

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendant No. 1 executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letter, deed of Hypothecation,

¶22

letter of continuity, demand promissory note etc. Additionally

(OA No.37/2024)

Page 3 of 8

[AMBADAS]

defendant No. 2 stood as guarantor for defendant No. 1 and

¶27

executed deed of guarantee on 09.05.2017 in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶28

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendant executed hypothecation agreement on 09.05.2017, thereby hypothecating stock and building material etc., in favour of the applicant bank.

¶29

The applicant bank also states that, the defendant owns of personal property bearing House No. 606, near Maharudra High School, Kumbhephal Taluka and District Aurangabad and House No. 26, post Kumbephal, Taluka and District Aurangabad.

¶30

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

(OA No.37/2024)

Page 4 of 8

[AMBADAS]

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 30.08.2018. Therefore, on 02.07.2019 the applicant bank issued legal notice to the defendants through their advocate. Despite service of Notice, the defendants failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶35

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were served through affixation. Hence, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 30.03.2024.

¶36

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Chandrakant Keshav Parate, Chief Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Exh. A-1 to A-10 along with list of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

(OA No.37/2024)

Page 5 of 8

[AMBADAS]

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

¶41

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.

¶42

The applicant Bank has claimed charge over hypothecated properties, and personal property of the borrower. The hypothecated assets will not be sufficient to satisfy the dues of the bank, as such the personal property detailed above, is required to be attached.

¶43

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @11.30 p.a. from the date of filing i.e. 29.12.2022 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.

(OA No.37/2024)

Page 6 of 8

[AMBADAS]

ORDER

(A) Original Application No. 37/2024 is allowed with costs.

¶49

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 42,50,109/- (Rupees Forty Two Lacs, Fifty Thousand, One Hundred and Nine only), along with future interest @ 9% p.a. on term loan (simple), from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 29.12.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶50

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by all hypothecation of stock and building material etc., vide hypothecation agreement dated 09.05.2017 at Exhibit A-4 in the list of documents Exh.5.

¶51

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the hypothecated stock and building material etc., to recover its dues.

¶52

(E)

¶53

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

(OA No.37/2024)

Page 7 of 8

[AMBADAS]

(F) The Registrar is directed to send the copy of the

¶58

Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant and defendants.

¶59

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

Pronounced in open court. Place: Aurangabad Date:.12.09.2025

¶62

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

¶63

(OA No.37/2024)

¶64

Page 8 of 8

¶65

[AMBADAS]

Bank of India v. Ramrao Dadarao Shelke

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Ramrao Dadarao Shelke

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

Union Bank of India versus M/s Shree Laxmi Bangles

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/s Tanvi Agro Agency

Punjab National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus M/s Home Studio

State Bank of India versus Digambar Manikrao Deshmukh

Jyoti Yashwantrao Sansare versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S Anita Agency