Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Prajwal Praful Kandalkar

DRT2 Sept 2025OA/410/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad, allowed the bank's recovery application, directing the defendant to repay Rs. 35,50,349.49 with future interest at 9% p.a., as the defendant failed to appear and contest the claim.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay Rs. 35,50,349.49 with future interest at 9% p.a.; charge on hypothecated movable assets; issue of Recovery Certificate; direction to sell assets for realization.

Union Bank of India versus Prajwal Praful Kandalkar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 25.01.2024 Registered on: 11.06.2024 Decided on: 02.09.2025 Duration: Y M D 01 08 07

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 410/2024

¶3

Union Bank of India

¶4

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 35,50,349.49/-

¶5

A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking

¶6

companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970, Having its Registered office at 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 & having branches amongst the other places at Main Branch, Nanded through it’s Power of Attorney holder, Mr. Shivanjan Choudhury s/o Sanat Kumar Choudhury (Chief Manager), Age: 38 years, Occ.: Service, R/o. Sant Kripa Market, Nanded 431601.

… Applicant

(OA No.410/2024)

Page 1 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Versus

Mr. Prajwal Praful Kandalkar Prop. of M/s Varad Movies Age: Major, Occu.: Business, R/o.: At House No. 181-C, Pratik Niwas, CIDCO, Vatsalya Nagar, Near Mahanagar Palika Hospital Nanded 431603

¶13

AND/OR

¶14

Mr. Prajwal Praful Kandalkar Prop. of M/s Varad Movies Age: Major, Occu.: Business, R/o.: At Behind Om hotel, Virushul Building, Shivaji Nagar, Nanded 431601

¶15

…Defendant

¶16

APPEARANCES For the Applicant Mr. K.D. Pande -Advocate For Defendant Ex-parte

¶17

JUDGMENT Delivered on 02.09.2025

¶18

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 35,50,349.49/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs, Fifty Thousand, Three Hundred Forty Nine and Forty Nine Paisa only), along with future interest from the date of filing of the

(OA No.410/2024)

Page 2 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Original Application, i.e., 25.01.2024, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendant.

¶23

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶24

The applicant bank states that Defendant approached the applicant bank seeking financial assistance in the form of Term Loan Facility under CGTMSE scheme. Upon scrutiny of the submitted documents, the applicant bank sanctioned a Term Loan Facility under CGTMSE scheme of Rs. 24,75,000/- vide sanction letter dated 11.12.2018. The agreed rate of interest was @8.70% p.a. with monthly rests. The defendant also agreed to pay an additional interest @ 2% by way of liquidated damages in case of default in repayment.

¶25

The applicant bank further states that the defendant again approached to the applicant bank requested to sanction a Term loan facility under UGECL scheme due to impact of COVID-19 and upon considering the request and need of the defendant, the

(OA No.410/2024)

Page 3 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Applicant Bank sanctioned a Term Loan Facility of Rs. 4,80,000/under UGECL scheme vide sanction letter dated 08.06.2020. The agreed rate of interest was @7.50% p.a. with monthly rests. The defendant also agreed to pay an additional interest @ 2% by way of liquidated damages in case of default in repayment.

¶30

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendant executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letters, general term loan agreements, demand promissory notes, letters of undertaking, letter of continuity etc in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶31

¶32

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendant executed General Term Loan Agreements dated 11.12.2018 and 18.06.2020, thereby hypothecating in favour of the Applicant Bank all plant and machinery, stock, tangible movable machinery, equipment of the Borrower, together with spares, tools, accessories, and other

(OA No.410/2024)

Page 4 of 8

[AMBADAS]

movable assets, both present and future, whether lying loose or packed in cases, and whether currently lying or stored at any location, in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶37

The applicant bank contended that the defendant have failed to keep the promise and commitments agreed by him with regard to due repayment of the loan amount. The defendant 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 defendant to pay with the agreed rate of interest thereon, but the defendant failed and neglected to pay the same. The loan account of the defendants became irregular and classified as NPA on 28.09.2021. Therefore, on 17.11.2023 the applicant bank issued legal notice to the defendant through their advocate. Despite service of Notices, the defendant failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶38

The defendant failed to appear in matter though he was duly

(OA No.410/2024)

Page 5 of 8

[AMBADAS]

served. Hence, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 04.02.2025.

¶43

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Mr. Shivanjan Choudhury s/o Sanat Kumar Choudhury, Chief Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Exh. A-1 to A-23 along with list of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶44

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

¶45

Since the defendant 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.

¶46

The applicant Bank has claimed charge over hypothecated properties of the borrower.

¶47

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @11.60% p.a. on

(OA No.410/2024)

Page 6 of 8

[AMBADAS]

the Term loan Facilities from the date of filing i.e. 25.01.2024 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.

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(A) Original Application No. 410/2024 is allowed with costs.

¶54

(B) The defendant shall pay to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 35,50,349.49/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs, Fifty Thousand, Three Hundred Forty Nine and Forty Nine Paisa only), along with future interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 25.01.2024 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶55

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by all plant and machinery, stock, tangible movable machinery, equipment of the Borrower, together with spares, tools, accessories, and other movable assets,

(OA No.410/2024)

Page 7 of 8

[AMBADAS]

both present and future, whether lying loose or packed in cases, and whether currently lying or stored at any location, vide term loan agreement dated 11.12.2018 & 18.06.2020 at Exhibit A-5 & A-15 respectively in the list of documents Exh.5

¶60

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the above hypothecated plant and machinery/ articles/goods etc., to recover its dues.

¶61

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶62

(F) The Registrar is directed to send the copy of the Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant and defendant.

¶63

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

Pronounced in open court. Place: Aurangabad Date:.02.09.2025

¶66

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

¶67

(OA No.410/2024)

¶68

Page 8 of 8

¶69

[AMBADAS]

Union Bank of India v. Prajwal Praful Kandalkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Prajwal Praful Kandalkar

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

State Bank of India versus Damodhar Kacharu Hiwale

Loknayak Jayprakash Narayan Shetkari Sahakari Soot Girni Ltd. versus National Cooperative Development Corporationand ISO-9001:2015 certified Organization Ministry of Cooperation, Goverment of India

Bank of Maharashtra versus Ashok Ramrao Rashinkar

Punjab National Bank versus Bhagchand Rambhau Pandule

Union Bank of India versus Kishor Parashram Wagh

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Kalyani Print and Packing