Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. M/s. Jay Tuljabhavani Stone Crusher

DRT13 Oct 2025OA/443/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant Bank's application seeking recovery of Rs. 25,79,994.71. Distinguishing from complex litigation, the court proceeded ex parte due to respondent absence. It allowed future interest at 8% p.a. and directed sale of mortgaged property for realization.

What did the court decide?

Return of Rs. 25,79,994.71 with future interest at 8% p.a. and power to sell mortgaged property.

Punjab National Bank versus M/s. Jay Tuljabhavani Stone Crusher — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 18.08.2022 Registered on: 01.11.2022 Decided on: 13.10.2025 Duration: Y M D 03 01 25

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD

¶3

(Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 443/2022

¶4

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 25,79,994.71/Punjab National Bank, A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 & having it’s Head Office at Plot No. 4, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075, having branches amongst the other places at Ghogargaon, Tq. Shirgonda, Dist. Ahmednagar through it’s POA, Mr. Rahul s/o Nathaji Potphode (Senior Manager), Age: 36 yrs., Occ.: Service, R/o.: Ghogargaon, Tq. … Applicant Shirgonda, Dist. Ahmednagar 414001.

Versus

(OA No.443/2022)

Page 1 of 8

[AMBADAS]

1.M/s. Jay Tuljabhavani Stone Crusher, Through its Proprietor, Mr. Jaydev Pandurang Dhumal R/o.: At Kerul, Post Kerul, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed-414208.

¶10

2. Mr. Jaydev Pandurang Dhumal, Age: Major, Occ.: Business, R/o.: At Kerul, Post Kerul, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed-414208.

¶11

…Defendant

¶12

APPEARANCES For the Applicant For Defendants

¶13

Mr. K. D. Pande -Advocate Ex-parte

¶14

JUDGMENT Delivered on 13.10.2025

¶15

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 25,79,994.71/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs, Seventy Nine Thousand, Nine Hundred Ninety Four and Seventy One Paisa only), along with future interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 18.08.2022, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶16

Brief facts of the application are as under:

(OA No.443/2022)

Page 2 of 8

[AMBADAS]

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendant No. 2 runs his business under the name and styled as “M/s. Jay Tuljabhavani Stone Crusher” being a proprietor of defendant No. 1 had approached and requested the Applicant Bank for Term Loan Facility. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the Defendant, the Applicant Bank sanctioned Term Loan Facility of Rs. 23,75,000/- vide sanction letter dated 08.03.2019 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for the aforesaid loan was @ 11. % p.a. with monthly rests. The Defendant also agreed to pay additional interest @2% by way of liquidated damages in the event of any default in repayment.

¶21

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendants executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letter, letter of undertaking, registered mortgage deed bearing daybook no. 895 dated 08.03.2019 & hypothecation agreement in favour of the Applicant Bank

(OA No.443/2022)

Page 3 of 8

[AMBADAS]

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendant No. 2 created first charge over his immovable property under daybook no. 895 dated 08.03.2019 in favour of the Applicant Bank. The mortgage was created in respect of the following property:

¶26

All that piece and parcel of Industrial N.A. land admeasuring 1 H 00 R forming part of Gut No. 384, Old Survey No. 209, situated at Village Kerul, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed, which is bounded as under:

¶27

East: Madava-Kerul Road, West: Property of Mr. Ramkisan Bhagwat, South: Property of Mr. Ashok Ghule, North: Property of Mr. Falle,

¶28

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

(OA No.443/2022)

Page 4 of 8

[AMBADAS]

to pay the same. The loan account of the defendants became irregular and classified as NPA on 02.12.2019. Therefore on 10.05.2022 the applicant bank issued legal notice to the defendants through their advocate. Despite service of Notices, the defendants failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶33

The defendant failed to appear in matter though they were served through summons. Hence, the defendants were proceeded exparte as per Order dated 15.11.2023.

¶34

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Mr. Rahul s/o. Nathaji Potphode, Power of Attorney Holder of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Exh. A-1 to A-9 along with list of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶35

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

(OA No.443/2022)

Page 5 of 8

[AMBADAS]

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.

¶40

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

¶41

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @8.05 % p. a. from the date of filing i.e. 18.08.2022 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 @ 8 % per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶42

ORDER

¶43

(A) Original Application No. 443/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶44

(B) The defendant shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 25,79,994.71/- (Rupees

(OA No.443/2022)

Page 6 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Twenty Five Lacs, Seventy Nine Thousand, Nine Hundred Ninety Four and Seventy One Paisa only), along with future interest @ 8 % per annum (simple) on outstanding amount from the date of filing of the O.A. i.e. 18.08.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶49

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the mortgage of the following immovable properties bearing daybook no. 895 vide simple registered mortgage deed dated 08.03.2019 at Exh A-5 in list of documents Exh. 5.

¶50

All that piece and parcel of Industrial N.A. land admeasuring 1 H 00 R forming part of Gut No. 384, Old Survey No. 209, situated at Village Kerul, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed, which is bounded as under:

¶51

East: Madava-Kerul Road, West: Property of Mr. Ramkisan Bhagwat, South: Property of Mr. Ashok Ghule, North: Property of Mr. Falle,

(OA No.443/2022)

Page 7 of 8

[AMBADAS]

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

¶56

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶57

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

¶58

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

Pronounced in open court. (Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Place: Aurangabad Presiding Officer Date:.13.10.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶61

(OA No.443/2022)

¶62

Page 8 of 8

¶63

[AMBADAS]

Punjab National Bank v. M/s. Jay Tuljabhavani Stone Crusher

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. M/s. Jay Tuljabhavani Stone Crusher

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 Manisha Hiraman Bedse

Ms Siddheshwar Krushi Seva Kendra versus Bank of Maharashtra

State Bank of India versus Akhil Sharad Khandelwal

Union Bank of India versus Balaji Nivrutti Ankush

Bank of Baroda versus Aviraj Arun Marathe

Union Bank of India versus Bhatu Soma Wankhede