Allowed

State Bank of India v. Satish Nikam

DRT18 Aug 2025OA/483/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of dues. Being an ex-parte proceeding, the court verified documents and sanctioned a reduced amount with adjusted interest, granting the right to sell mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly or severally to pay Rs. 36,27,648/- with future interest at 9% p.a.; entitlement to sell mortgaged properties; Recovery Certificate to be issued.

State Bank of India versus Satish Nikam — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 09.07.2022 Registered on: 12.04.2023 Decided on: 18.08.2025 Duration: Y M D 03 01 09

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.483/2023.

¶3

State Bank of India,

¶4

A Corporation constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, and having one of its Local Head Office at Synergy State Bank Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai and one of its branch office known as Vardhaman Building, 2^nd floor, 321/A/3, Mahatma Phule Peth, Seven Loves Chowk, Shankar Sheth Road, Pune-42 known as Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Pune.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 Mr. Satish Sambhaji Nikam Age adult, Occ.:- Business,

¶8

2 Mrs. Renuka Satish Nikam Age adult, Occ.:- Business, Both R/At & Post Vita, Taluka Khanapur, District Sangli-415 311.

¶9

.. Defendants

¶10

APPEARANCES

¶11

For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶12

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

¶13

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.36,34,556/-.

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

(Delivered on 18^th August, 2025)

(OA No.483/2023)

Page 1 of 6

[ANIL]

The Applicant Bank has filed present application for recovery of Rs.36,34,556/- towards Overdraft Loan A/c No.35625490712 together with future interest @ 13.05%p.a. with monthly rests from the date of filing of Original Appliction till repayment/realization of the entire dues from defendants No.1 and 2.

¶20

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶21

Defendants No.1 & 2 approached to the Applicant Bank on 08.11.2015 and requested for overdraft of Rs.70,00,000/- for their business purpose. The Applicant Bank considered the request of the Defendants and sanctioned Overdraft of Rs.70,00,000/- to the defendants on 10.03.2016, on certain terms and conditions, which the defendants have accepted.

¶22

Further, the defendants have executed necessary loan transaction and security documents in favour of the Applicant Bank as set out in Para No.5.5 of the Original Application.

¶23

After execution of security documents by the defendants in favour of the applicant bank, they also executed Deed of Mortgage (Simple Mortgage) on 11.03.2016 and mortgaged below mentioned property in favour of the applicant bank for securing the Overdraft of Rs.70,00,000/-. The said Deed of Mortgage is duly registered with Sub Registrar Office Khanapur at Sr.No.671/2016 on 11.03.2016.

(OA No.483/2023)

Page 2 of 6

[ANIL]

The mortgaged properties are i.e all that piece and parcel of Plot No.2, C.S.No.3438, S.No.812/1B and C.S.No.729 admeasuring 156 sq. mtrs. entire share; C.S.No.730 admeasuring 119.2 sq. mtrs. at Vita, Taluka Khanapur, within the limits of Registration District Sangli, Sub Registration District Khanapur, District Sangli, more particularly described in Para No.5.7 of the Original Application.

¶28

The applicant bank states that Defendants No.1 and 2 have executed Revival Letters on 04.09.2018 and 21.04.2021 in favour of the Applicant Bank in Overdraft account of the Defendants No.1 and 2 with the Applicant Bank.

¶29

After execution of the security documents and registration of Simple Mortgage in fvour of the applicant bank, Defendant No.1 and 2 have availed Overdraft Facility as per their requirement and exigencies from time to time and also agreed to pay the same as per the agreement terms. But, Defendant No.1 and 2 failed to pay the installments of the loan as per the terms of sanction. The said overdraft facility was also running irregular and defendants were reluctant to pay the amount. Therefore, the account of the defendants was declared as NPA, as per RBI guidelines.

¶30

Thereafter, the Applicant Bank has recalled the dues in the Overdraft account from Defendants No.1 and 2 by personal visits and telephonically. However, Defendants No.1 and 2 have failed to

(OA No.483/2023)

Page 3 of 6

[ANIL]

pay the installments or regularize the account of the defendants No.1 and 2 with the Applicant Bank.

¶35

Hence, this Application.

¶36

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against them as per order dated 05.05.2025 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶37

The Applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit (Exhibit-5) of Mrs. Padmaja Chandrashekhar Pol, Chief Manager, which supports the case of the applicant elucidated in the application whereas defendants failed to lead the evidence.

¶38

The Applicant Bank has produced in evidence the list of documents and filed the loan and security documents at Sr.Nos.AW-1/1 to AW-1/8, in support of its case.

¶39

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

¶40

Since the defendants have 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 the reliefs claimed.

(OA No.483/2023)

Page 4 of 6

[ANIL]

The applicant bank has claimed penal interest of Rs.6,908/- for Overdraft Facility, which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.36,34,556/- is reduced to Rs.36,27,648/-.

¶45

The Applicant Bank has claimed future interest @13.05% p.a. with monthly rests from the defendants. Having regard to the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that it would be just and appropriate to grant interest @9% per annum.

¶46

Hence, I pass the following order:-

¶47

ORDER

¶48

(A) Original Application No.483/2023 is allowed with costs.

¶49

(B) Defendants No.1 & 2 jointly or severally shall pay to the Applicant Bank an amount of Rs.36,27,648 /- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Fourty Eight only) towards Overdraft Loan Account No. 35625490712 with future interest @ 9%p.a. from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 09.07.2022 till payment/ realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶50

(C) As a security to the Overdraft Loan amount, Defendants No.1 & 2 have executed below mentioned immovable property i.e. all that piece and parcel of Plot No.2, C.S.No.3438, S.No.812/1B and C.S.No.729 admeasuring 156 sq. mtrs. entire share; C.S.No.730 admeasuring 119.2 sq. mtrs. at Vita, Taluka Khanapur, within the limits of Registration District Sangli, Sub Registration District Khanapur, District Sangli, more

(OA No.483/2023)

Page 5 of 6

[ANIL]

particularly described in Para No.5.7 of the Original Application.

¶55

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

¶56

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶57

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

¶58

Sd/Place : Pune (Dilip G. Murumkar) Date: 18.08.2025

¶59

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

¶60

(OA No.483/2023)

¶61

Page 6 of 6

¶62

[ANIL]

State Bank of India v. Satish Nikam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Satish Nikam

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

Central Bank of India versus Sanjay Lokhande

Bank of India versus Sambhaji Patil

State Bank of India versus Ashitosh Gaikwad

Bank of Maharashtra versus Suresh Katkar

Idbi Bank versus Mahesh

Uco Bank versus Ganesh Nagave