Allowed

Uco Bank v. Mahendra Narutepatil

DRT8 Dec 2025OA/466/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application for recovery. The bank claimed dues from borrowers and guarantors. Interest claimed was modified from 13.60% to 9% p.a. The defendant failed to appear, and the claim was granted with future interest and lien on mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs.64,97,495/- with future interest at 9% p.a. and entitlement to sell mortgaged property. Recovery certificate issued.

Uco Bank versus Mahendra Narutepatil — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 16.08.2022 Registered on: 16.04.2023 Decided on: 08.12.2025 Duration: Y M D 03 03 22

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE. (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.466/2023.

¶3

UCO Bank ,

¶4

A Corporate Body constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970, having its Head Office at – 10, B.T.M. Sarani, Kolkata and branch amongst other places at Market Yard, Indapur Road, Baramati, Taluka Baramati, District Pune.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Mr. Mahendra Bapurao Narutepatil

¶8

2. Mr. Bapurao Ganpat Narute 3 . Mr. Tulshiram Narayan Shinde

¶9

All R/at & Post Kazad, Taluka Indapur,

¶10

… Defendants

¶11

District Pune-413 104.

¶12

APPEARANCES For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶13

Mr. R. B. Ganbote - Advocate Ex-parte.

¶14

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.64,97,495/-.

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

(Delivered on 8^th December, 2025)

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed present application for recovery of aggregate sum of Rs.64,97,495/- [i.e. Rs.8,65,672/- towards Term Loan Account of Rs.4.16 Lakhs; Rs.22,67,171/- towards Term Loan

(OA No.466/2023)

Page 1 of 5

[ANIL]

Account of Rs.12.38 Lakhs & Rs.35,44,652 towards Term Loan Account of Rs.19.20 Lakhs] with future interest thereon @13.60% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of filing of the application till repayment/realization of entire dues from the defendants.

¶22

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶23

Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 approached applicant bank on 22.03.2015 and requested for Term Loan of Rs.35,74,000/- (i.e. Term Loan of Rs.4,16,000/- for Land Development with Drip Irrigation, Term loan of Rs.12,38,000/- for Grape Plantation and Term loan of Rs.19,20,000/- for Farm Pond) to Defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 and 3 offered themselves as Guarantors for securing Term Loan availed by Defendant No.1 from the applicant bank.

¶24

The Applicant Bank sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs.35,74,000/i.e. Term Loan of Rs.4,16,000/- for Land Development with Drip Irrigation, Term loan of Rs.12,38,000/- for Grape Plantation and Term loan of Rs.19,20,000/- for Farm Pond on 22.04.2015 on certain terms and conditions, which defendant No.1 has accepted.

¶25

In order to secure the Term Loan Facility of Rs.35,74,000/-, the defendants have executed necessary loan transaction and security documents on 09.06.2015, in favour of the Applicant Bank as set out in Para Nos. 5.5 of the Original Application.

¶26

So also, Defendant No.1 has executed Simple Mortgage Deed on 12.05.2015 registered with Sub Registrar Office Indapur at Sr. No.3578/2015 and mortgaged the immovable property i.e. All that piece and parcel of Gat No.437(P) admeasuring 03H 36R plus PK

(OA No.466/2023)

Page 2 of 5

[ANIL]

00H 51R assessed at Rs.3.72Ps. at village Kazad, Taluka Indapur, within the limits of Registration District Pune, Sub Registration District Baramati, District Pune, more particularly mentioned in Para No.5.7 of the Original Application.

¶31

Defendant No.1 has executed two separate acknowledgments on 28.02.2018 and 31.01.2021 and confirmed the balance in the Term Loan accounts of Defendant No.1 with the applicant bank.

¶32

It is contended that in spite of several requests, defendant No.1 has not paid the installments in the Term Loan Accounts and interest in Term Loan Account and thus, Defendant No.1 has committed breach of the sanction terms and conditions and hence, the accounts of defendants with the Applicant Bank turned Non-Performing Assets as per the Reserve Bank of India norms.

¶33

Therefore, the applicant bank through its Advocate Ramesh B. Ganbote has issued Recall Notice on 21.07.2022 to the defendants and recalled the dues in Term Loan Accounts. Even issuance of recall notice, the defendants failed to pay the amount demanded in Recall Notice.

¶34

Hence, this application is filed.

¶35

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against them vide Order dated 01.05.2025 passed below the Application (Exhibit-01).

¶36

The Applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit6) of Mr. Manoj Ambadas Panpatil, Branch Manager & Principal

(OA No.466/2023)

Page 3 of 5

[ANIL]

Officer, which supports the case of the applicant elucidated in the application.

¶41

The Applicant Bank has produced in evidence the original loan documents at Exhs.-AW-1 to AW-13, which corroborate the case of the Applicant Bank.

¶42

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

¶43

Since the defendants failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Applicant Bank. Therefore, the Applicant Bank is entitled for reliefs as claimed.

¶44

The Applicant Bank has claimed relief in respect of hypothecated assets. However, there is no detailed description with respect to the hypothecated assets. Therefore, the relief in terms of hypothecated assets cannot be granted.

¶45

The Applicant Bank has claimed future interest @13.60% p.a. for Term Loan Accounts. Considering the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% p.a. (simple) for all the facilities, it would be just and reasonable.

¶46

Hence, I pass the following order: -

(OA No.466/2023)

Page 4 of 5

[ANIL]

ORDER

(A) Original Application No.466/2023 is allowed with costs.

¶52

(B) Defendant Nos.1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay an aggregate amount of Rs.64,97,495/- (Rupees Sixty Four Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Five only) to the Applicant Bank, towards Term Loan Accounts with future interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e.16.08.2022 till payment / realization of the amount.

¶53

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by Simple Mortgage of the following immovable property i.e. all that piece and parcel of agricultural land bearing Gat No. 437(P) admeasuring 03H 36R plus PK 00H 51R assessed at Rs.3.72Ps. at village Kazad, Taluka Indapur, within the limits of Registration District Pune, Sub Registration District Baramati, District Pune, more particularly mentioned in Para No.5.7 of the Original Application.

¶54

(D) The Applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged property to recover its dues.

¶55

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶56

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

¶57

Place: Pune Date: 08.12.2025

¶58

Sd/(Dilip G. Murumkar) Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶59

(OA No.466/2023)

¶60

Page 5 of 5

¶61

[ANIL]

Uco Bank v. Mahendra Narutepatil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Mahendra Narutepatil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Federal Bank versus Alaka Kerimane

State Bank of India versus Gajanan

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S Needa Enterprises Prop. Bachha Moiuuddin Khan

Bank of India versus Subhash Teravade

State Bank of India versus Mitul Vyas

Punjab National Bank versus Manoj Kad