Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Shakuntala

DRT4 Oct 2025OA/51/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte recovery application, the Debts Recovery Tribunal upheld the bank's claim for outstanding dues. The tribunal reduced the claimed future interest rates to 9% or 7% as reasonable and granted the bank the right to sell mortgaged properties and issue a recovery certificate. Defendants were held jointly and severally liable.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay adjudicated principal sums with reduced future interest at 7% or 9% or directive to sell mortgaged land and issue Recovery Certificate.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Shakuntala — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on .. 31.07.2021 Registered on .. 19.01.2023 Decided on .. 04.10.2025 Duration .. Y—M—D 04--02--04

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 51/2023.

¶3

Bank of Maharashtra, A Banking Company Incorporated under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act V of 1970, having its head office at ―Lokmangal‖, 1501, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411005 and one of its branch office at Sansar, Taluka Indapur, District Pune 413 104.

¶4

… Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1 Mrs. Shakuntala Balbhim Patil, Age 52 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/at : At Post Bori, Taluka Indapur, District Pune 413 104.

¶7

2 Mr. Balbhim Baburao Patil, Age 53 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/at : At Post Bori, Taluka Indapur, District Pune 413 104.

¶8

3 Mr. Krushnakant Baburao Patil, Age 41 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/at : At Post Bori, Taluka Indapur, District Pune 413 104.

¶9

Sanap ( OA No. 51/2023 ) 1 of 7

¶10

4 Mr. Rajendra Balbhim Patil, Age 52 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/at : At Post Bori, Taluka Indapur, District Pune 413 104. … Defendants

¶11

Appearances :-

¶12

For Applicant Advocate Ashok Tamboli. For Defendants Ex parte.

¶13

Total Claim Amount – Rs.55,92,813/-

¶14

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 04^th October, 2025)

¶15

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.55,92,813/- together with future interest from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶16

Brief facts of the application are as under :-

¶17

As per the loan application of defendant No.1, the applicant Bank sanctioned the following loan facilities to defendant No.1 for the purpose of growing of sugar cane, well renovation, laying of pipeline and for agricultural purpose.

¶18

	Name of facility	Amount	Date of Sanction
1	MKCC	Rs.4,90,000/-	25.08.2010
2	Term Loan	Rs.8,00,000/-	11.10.2012

¶19

Sanap ( OA No. 51/2023 ) 2 of 7

¶20

3 Term Loan Rs.6,00,000/02.12.2013 4 MKCC Rs.4,91,000/26.07.2014

¶21

Defendant Nos.2 and 3 stood guarantors for the repayment of MKCC loan of Rs.4,90,000/- and Term Loan of Rs.8,00,000/- availed by defendant No.1.

¶22

Defendant Nos.2 and 4 stood guarantors for the repayment of Term Loan of Rs.6,00,000/- availed by defendant No.1.

¶23

Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 stood guarantors for the repayment of MKCC loan of Rs.4,91,000/- availed by defendant No.1.

¶24

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants have executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank. The defendants have also executed registered mortgage in respect of all those pieces and parcels of agricultural land bearing Gat No. 500/1 admeasuring 9H 30R and Gat No. 505 admeasuring 4H situated at Bori, Taluka Indapur, District Pune, in favour of the applicant Bank. Further, the defendants have also executed Balance Confirmation Letters from time to time in favour of the applicant Bank, and thereby confirmed the balance outstanding in loan accounts.

¶25

Sanap ( OA No. 51/2023 ) 3 of 7

¶26

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Hence, on 10.04.2018, the applicant Bank has classified the account of the defendants as Non-Performing Asset in accordance with guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Thereafter, on 20.04.2018, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendants. Despite service of Notice, the defendants failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank.

¶27

Hence, this application is filed.

¶28

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against the defendants as per Order dated 02.06.2025 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶29

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Pankaj Kumar Shrivastava, Branch Manager of the applicant Bank and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1 to AW-56 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶30

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

¶31

Sanap ( OA No. 51/2023 ) 4 of 7

¶32

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

¶33

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @14% per annum for MKCC of Rs.4,90,000/- and Term Loan of Rs.8,00,000/- accounts; @13.25% per annum for Term Loan of Rs.6,00,000/- account and @7% per annum for MKCC of Rs.4,91,000/-. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple) for MKCC facility of Rs.4,90,000/-; Term Loan facility of Rs.8,00,000/- and Term Loan facility of Rs.6,00,000/- and @7% per annum for MKCC of Rs.4,91,000/-, it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶34

Hence, I pass the following order.

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

A} Original Application No. 51/2023 is allowed with costs.

¶37

B} Defendant Nos.1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.34,41,538/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs Forty One Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Eight only) towards MKCC facility of Rs.4,90,000/- and Term Loan facility of Rs.8,00,000/-

¶38

Sanap ( OA No. 51/2023 ) 5 of 7

¶39

along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 31.07.2021 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶40

C} Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.15,01,122/(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs One Thousand One Hundred Twenty Two only) towards Term Loan facility of Rs.6,00,000/- along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 31.07.2021 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶41

D} Defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.6,50,153/(Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand One Hundred Fifty Three only) towards MKCC loan facility of Rs.4,91,000/along with future interest @7% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 31.07.2021 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶42

E} The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage in respect of all those pieces and parcels of agricultural land bearing Gat No.

¶43

Sanap ( OA No. 51/2023 ) 6 of 7

¶44

500/1 admeasuring 9H 30R and Gat No. 505 admeasuring 4H situated at Bori, Taluka Indapur, District Pune, more particularly described in the Para No. 5.13, 5.16, 5.18 and 5.20 of the Original Application. F} The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged property to recover its dues.

¶45

G} Issue Recovery Certificate. H} The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant and defendants.

¶46

Sd/( Dilip G. Murumkar ) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 04.10.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶47

Sanap ( OA No. 51/2023 ) 7 of 7

Bank of Maharashtra v. Shakuntala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Shakuntala

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

Uco Bank versus Sachin Thombare

State Bank of India versus Swati

Union Bank of India versus Rahul Raje Bhosale

Bank of India versus Ganpat Malekar

State Bank of India versus Mark Andrade

Canara Bank versus Narayan