Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Smt. Priti Narendra Patil

DRT8 Dec 2025OA/457/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by Punjab National Bank for recovery of Rs. 63,39,051/- and future interest @10% p.a. against borrowers Gujarat, securing the claim via a mortgage on immovable property and empowering the Bank to sell the property.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 63,39,051/- with future interest @10% p.a.; applicant Bank allowed to sell mortgaged property to recover dues; Recovery Certificate issued.

Punjab National Bank versus Smt. Priti Narendra… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 19.07.2022 Registered on: 03.11.2022 Decided on: 08.12.2025 Duration: Y M D 03 04 19

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 457/2022

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 63,39,051/-

¶4

Punjab National Bank,

¶5

A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking

¶6

companies Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings Act 1970 having its Head Office at 1 Bhikaji Kama Place, New Delhi 110 607 and one of its branch, At Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon – 425 401, through its Authority Letter, Shri. Chandan.

¶7

Versus

¶8

… Applicant

¶9

1. Smt. Priti Narendra Patil, Prop. M/s. Priyanka Garments At: Phase - 2, Bhirud Colony, Narayan Nagar, Bhusawal, Jalgaon-425 201.

(OA No.457/2022)

Page 1 of 8

[AMBADAS]

2. Shri. Narendra Gangadhar Patil, Adult, Occ.: Business, R/o.: At: Phase - 2, Bhirud Colony, Narayan Nagar, Bhusawal, Jalgaon-425 201.

¶14

…Defendants

¶15

APPEARANCES

¶16

For the Applicant For Defendants

¶17

Mr. G. A. Rajput -Advocate Ex-parte

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Delivered on 08.12.2025

¶20

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the

¶21

recovery of a sum of Rs. 63,39,051/- (Rupees Sixty Three Lacs, Thirty Nine Thousand, Fifty One only), along with future interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 19.07.2022, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶22

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶23

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendant No. 1 had approached and requested the Applicant Bank for Cash Credit

(OA No.457/2022)

Page 2 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Facility & Term loan facility. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the Defendant, the Applicant Bank sanctioned Cash Credit Facility of Rs. 15,00,000/- & Term loan facility of Rs. 20,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 26.08.2016 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for the aforesaid loan facilites was @ 15% p.a. with monthly rests. The Defendants also agreed to pay additional interest @2% by way of liquidated damages in the event of any default in repayment.

¶28

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendant executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letter, letter of undertaking, hypothecation agreement, registered mortgage deed bearing serial no. 408/2016 etc. Additionally defendant No. 2 stood as guarantor for defendant no. 1 and executed deed of guarantee on 03.09.2016 in favour of the Applicant Bank.

(OA No.457/2022)

Page 3 of 8

[AMBADAS]

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendant No. 1 created first charge over his immovable property by executing registered mortgage

¶33

deed bearing serial no. 408/2016 in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶34

The mortgage was created in respect of the following property:

¶35

All that piece and parcel of Plot No. 3, S. No.. 57, adm. 168 sq. mtr., and construction thereon, situated at Bhusawal, Jalgaon and bounded as under:

¶36

East: 9 Mtr. Road, South: Plot No.2, West: S. No. 58, North: Plot No. 4.

¶37

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.457/2022)

Page 4 of 8

[AMBADAS]

to pay the same. The loan account of the defendants became irregular and classified as NPA on 10.10.2017. Therefore on 10.06.2022 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.

¶42

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were duly served. Hence, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 14.03.2024.

¶43

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Chandan, Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Exh. A-1 to A-11 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.

(OA No.457/2022)

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.

¶49

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

¶50

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @15 % p. a. from the date of filing i.e. 19.07.2022 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 @ 10% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶51

ORDER

¶52

(A) Original Application No. 457/2022 is allowed with costs.

(OA No.457/2022)

Page 6 of 8

[AMBADAS]

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 63,39,051/- (Rupees Sixty Three Lacs, Thirty Nine Thousand, Fifty One only), along with future interest @ 10% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the O.A. i.e. 19.07.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶57

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the mortgage of the following immovable property vide document at Exh A-6 in list of documents Exh. 5.

¶58

All that piece and parcel of Plot No. 3, S. No.. 57, adm. 168 sq. mtr., and construction thereon, situated at Bhusawal, Jalgaon and bounded as under:

¶59

East: 9 Mtr. Road, South: Plot No.2, West: S. No. 58, North: Plot No. 4.

¶60

(D)

¶61

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

(OA No.457/2022)

Page 7 of 8

[AMBADAS]

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶66

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

¶67

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶68

Sd/-

¶69

Pronounced in open court. (Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Place: Aurangabad Presiding Officer Date:.08.12.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶70

(OA No.457/2022)

¶71

Page 8 of 8

¶72

[AMBADAS]

Punjab National Bank v. Smt. Priti Narendra Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Smt. Priti Narendra Patil

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 Mr. Subhash Mansaram Patil (Jadhav)

Union Bank of India versus Vasant Punju Patil

Union Bank of India versus Navnath Tatyaba Dhere

Maharastra Gramin Bank versus Smt. Suvarna Vishnu Satale

Suntop Hotels Private Limited versus Dwarkadas Manrti Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd.

State Bank of India versus M/s Kalshetti Highway Service