Allowed

State Bank of India v. Laxman Mahadev Ulekar

DRT29 Oct 2025OA/379/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal adjudicated an application by State Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 22.21 lakhs principal along with future interest from two respondents who defaulted on a home loan. The court allowed the application in their absence.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 22,21,914 plus future interest at 8% p.a. from the date of application, secured by sale of mortgaged property.

State Bank of India versus Laxman Mahadev Ulekar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 30.10.2023 Registered on: 03.06.2024 Decided on: 29.10.2025 Duration: Y M D 01 11 29

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 379/2024

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 22,21,914/-

¶4

STATE BANK OF INDIA,

¶5

State Bank of India (SARB) is a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India (SARB), Act, 1955 having a SME Branch at Tuljapur, through its Manager through Mr. Anupkumar Kashinath Tabhane , Manager, (City Case Officer), SARB, Aurangabad. Age: 51 years, Occ.: Service, R/o. Aurangabad.

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. Laxman Mahadev Ulekar, Age: Major, Occ.: Business, R/o.: Lohiya Nagar, Tuljapur, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Tuljapur.

¶9

2. Hirabai Laxman Ulekar, Age: Major, Occ.: Business, R/o.: Lohiya Nagar, Tuljapur, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Tuljapur.

…Defendants

(OA No.379/2024)

Page 1 of 8

[AMBADAS]

APPEARANCES

For the Applicant Mr. A.L. Muley Advocate For Defendants Ex-parte

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Delivered on 29.10.2025

¶18

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the

¶19

recovery of a sum of Rs. 22,21,914 /- (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs, Twenty One Thousand, Nine Hundred and Fourteen only), along with further interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 30.10.2023, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶20

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶21

That, the Defendant 1 & 2 had approached to the Applicant bank and requested to sanction a Housing Loan. Upon considering the request and need of the defendants, the Applicant Bank sanctioned a Home Loan Facility of Rs. 40,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 11.07.2019 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for aforesaid loan facilities was @ 8.9% p.a.

(OA No.379/2024)

Page 2 of 8

[AMBADAS]

with monthly rests. The defendants also agreed to pay an additional interest @2% by way of liquidated damages in case of default in repayment.

¶26

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendants executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank, including the sanction letter, home loan agreement, lease deed vide no. 2693/2019 dated 18.02.2019, etc., in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶27

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the Cash Credit Facility sanctioned to them, the Defendants created first charge over their immovable property by deposit of lease deed vide no. 2693/2019 dated 18.02.2019, in favour of the Applicant Bank. The mortgage was created in respect of the following property –

¶28

All that piece & parcel of Unit No. 037-0904, adm. Area 63.07 sq. mtr, 9^th Floor, Tower No. 037 situated at Sadesataranali, Tq.

(OA No.379/2024)

Page 3 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Haveli Dist. Pune standing in the name of Laxman Mahadeo Ulekar & Hirabai Laxman Ulekar, which is bounded as under: East: Lift Core, West: Open, South: Open, North: Flat No. 0905 (T-37).

¶33

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 24.09.2020. Therefore, on 11.10.2023 the applicant bank issued legal Notice to the defendant. The defendants failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

(OA No.379/2024)

Page 4 of 8

[AMBADAS]

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were duly served. Hence, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 28.03.2025.

¶38

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Mr. Anupkumar Kashinath Tabhane, City Case Officer of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Exh. A-1 to A-9 as per list of documents Exh. 5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶39

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

¶40

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.379/2024)

Page 5 of 8

[AMBADAS]

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

¶45

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @ 8.95% per annum with monthly rests on the loan from the date of filing i.e. 30.10.2023 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 @ 8% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(A) Original Application No. 379/2024 is allowed with costs.

¶48

(B) The defendant shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 22,21,914 /- (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs, Twenty One Thousand, Nine Hundred and Fourteen only), along with future interest @ 8% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the Original

(OA No.379/2024)

Page 6 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Application i.e. 30.10.2023 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶53

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the mortgaged of the following immovable property vide documents Exh. A-3 to A-5 in list of documents Exh. 5.

¶54

All that piece & parcel of Unit No. 037-0904, adm. Area 63.07 sq. mtr, 9^th Floor, Tower No. 037 situated at Sadesataranali, Tq. Haveli Dist. Pune standing in the name of Laxman Mahadeo Ulekar & Hirabai Laxman Ulekar, which is bounded as under:

¶55

East: Lift Core, West: Open, South: Open, North: Flat No. 0905 (T-37).

¶56

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

¶57

(E)

¶58

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

(OA No.379/2024)

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.

¶63

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

Pronounced in open court. Place: Aurangabad Date:.29.10.2025

¶66

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

¶67

(OA No.379/2024)

¶68

Page 8 of 8

¶69

[AMBADAS]

State Bank of India v. Laxman Mahadev Ulekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Laxman Mahadev Ulekar

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

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Anil Bhausaheb Kadam

Sumit Pavankumar Jain versus State Bank of India

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/s Zorco Organic Manures

Union Bank of India versus Ravindra Ratanlal Morwal

Bank of Maharashtra versus Nasrin Nashir Shaikh

Union Bank of India versus Shashikant Nandkumar Dhamdhere