Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Shaikh Rashid Shaikh Gani

DRT6 Oct 2025OA/528/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dr. J. R. Chauhan allowed an ex-parte recovery application by the Bank of Maharashtra against three defendants who defaulted on agricultural term loans and MKCC facilities. The court ordered payment of the principal sum plus 9% simple annual interest, secured by four mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs. 56,62,664/- with future interest at 9% p.a. simple, secured by four mortgaged properties and hypothecated articles.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Shaikh Rashid Shaikh Gani — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 27.01.2024 Registered on: 30.07.2024 Decided on: 06.10.2025 Duration: Y M D 01 08 09

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 528/2024

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 56,62,664/-

¶4

Bank of Maharashtra ,

¶5

A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, 5of 1970, carrying on banking business & Having its Head Office at “Lokmangal”, 1501, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411 005 and Zonal Office at “Mahabank Bhawan, C-3, N-1, Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad431003 and Branch at Kannad, Taluka Kannad, District Aurangabad, Through its Authorized officer, Shri. Sachin Balasaheb Kapse, Age: Major, Occ.: Service, Working as Senior Manager, Branch at

¶6

Kannad, Taluka Kannad, District Aurangabad.

… Applicant

(OA No.528/2024)

Page 1 of 10

[AMBADAS]

Versus

Shaikh Rashid Shaikh Gani, Age: Major, Occupation: Agriculture, R/o.: At Post At Post Amba, Tq. Kannad, District Aaurangabad AND Gut No. 111, situated at Sitanaik Tanda, Tq. Kannad, District Aurangabad. AND Gut No. 112, situated at Sitanaik Tanda, Tq. Kannad, District Aurangabad. AND Gut No. 113, situated at Sitanaik Tanda, Tq. Kannad, District Aurangabad. AND

¶13

Gut No. 108, situated at Sitanaik Tanda, Tq. Kannad, District Aurangabad.

¶14

Omkar Sitaram Chavan, Age: Major, Occupation: Farmer, R/o.: At Post Kolwadi, Tq. Kannad, District Aaurangabad.

¶15

Kailash Rupa Jadhav, Age: Major, Occupation: Farmer, R/o.: At Post Kolwadi, Tq. Kannad, District Aaurangabad.

¶16

…Defendants

¶17

APPEARANCES

¶18

For the Applicant Mr. Atul A. Mishra -Advocate For Defendants Ex-parte

(OA No.528/2024)

Page 2 of 10

[AMBADAS]

JUDGMENT Delivered on 06.10.2025

¶23

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 56,62,664/- (Rupees Fifty Six Lacs, Sixty Two Thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty Four only), along with future interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 27.01.2024, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶24

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶25

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendant Nos. 1 had approached and requested the Applicant Bank under MKCC facility for the purpose of agriculture crop & term loan facility for the purpose of drip set & installation of pipeline. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the Defendant, the Applicant Bank sanctioned term loan facility of Rs. 20,00,000/- & MKCC facility of Rs. 3,00,000/- vide, sanction letter dated 13.08.2013 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of

(OA No.528/2024)

Page 3 of 10

[AMBADAS]

interest for term loan facility was @13.75% p.a. & MKCC facility

¶30

was @7% p.a. with quarterly rests. The Defendants also agreed to

¶31

pay additional interest @2% by way of liquidated damages in the

¶32

event of any default in repayment.

¶33

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendants executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letter, demand promissory notes, mortgage deed bearing daybook no. 3886/2013 & hypothecation agreement etc. Additionally defendant No. 2 to 3 stood as guarantors for defendant no. 1 and executed deed of guarantee on 16.08.2013 in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶34

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendants executed mortgage deed bearing daybook no. 3886/2013 dated 13.08.2013 in respect of following properties:

¶35

i) All that piece and parcel of gut No. 111, admeasuring 2 H 01 R, situated at Sitanaik Tanda, Tq. Kannad, District Aurangabad, , which is bounded as under:

(OA No.528/2024)

Page 4 of 10

[AMBADAS]

East: Gut No. 112 West: Sumanbai Vithal South: Sk. Rasheed Sk. Gani North: Road.

¶40

ii) All that piece and parcel of gut No. 112, admeasuring 1 H 23 R, situated at Sitanaik Tanda, Tq. Kannad, District Aurangabad, , which is bounded as under:

¶41

East: Kisan Nanda West: Gut No. 111, South: Kisan Nanda, North: Road.

¶42

iii) All that piece and parcel of gut No. 113, admeasuring 1 H 20 R, situated at Sitanaik Tanda, Tq. Kannad, District Aurangabad, , which is bounded as under:

¶43

East: Premsing Nanda West: Gut No. 111 South: Yashodabai Motiram North: Sk. Rasheed Sk. Gani.

¶44

iv) All that piece and parcel of gut No. 108, admeasuring 1 H situated at Sitanaik Tanda, Tq. Kannad, District Aurangabad, , which is bounded as under:

¶45

East: Rambai Rathod West: Mannya Thokal South: Kavitabai Gopinath, North: Hukumchand Rathod.

(OA No.528/2024)

Page 5 of 10

[AMBADAS]

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 to pay the same. The loan account of the defendants became irregular and classified as NPA on 07.08.2018. Therefore, on 05.12.2022 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.

¶50

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were served through summons. Hence, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 18.02.2025.

(OA No.528/2024)

Page 6 of 10

[AMBADAS]

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Shri. Sachin Balasaheb Kapse, Chief Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Exh. AW-1(1) to AW-1(19) along with list of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶55

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

¶56

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.

¶57

The applicant Bank has claimed charge over immovable properties of the borrowers which are mortgaged in favour of the applicant bank.

¶58

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @12% p.a. on outstanding amount from the date of filing i.e. 27.01.2024 of this

(OA No.528/2024)

Page 7 of 10

[AMBADAS]

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 @ 9% per annum (simple) on outstanding amount, it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶63

ORDER

¶64

(A) Original Application No. 528/2024 is allowed with

¶65

costs.

¶66

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 56,62,664/- (Rupees Fifty Six Lacs, Sixty Two Thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty Four only), along with future interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the O.A. i.e. 27.01.2024 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶67

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the mortgage of the following immovable properties. Vide simple mortgage deed bearing daybook No. 3886-2013

(OA No.528/2024)

Page 8 of 10

[AMBADAS]

dated 13.08.2013 at Exh. AW-1(14) in the list of documents Exh. 5

¶72

i) All that piece and parcel of gut No. 111, admeasuring 2 H 01 R, situated at Sitanaik Tanda, Tq. Kannad, District Aurangabad, , which is bounded as under: East: Gut No. 112 West: Sumanbai Vithal South: Sk. Rasheed Sk. Gani North: Road.

¶73

ii) All that piece and parcel of gut No. 112, admeasuring 1 H 23 R, situated at Sitanaik Tanda, Tq. Kannad, District Aurangabad, , which is bounded as under:

¶74

East: Kisan Nanda West: Gut No. 111, South: Kisan Nanda, North: Road.

¶75

iii) All that piece and parcel of gut No. 113, admeasuring 1 H 20 R, situated at Sitanaik Tanda, Tq. Kannad, District Aurangabad, , which is bounded as under:

¶76

East: Premsing Nanda West: Gut No. 111 South: Yashodabai Motiram North: Sk. Rasheed Sk. Gani.

¶77

iv) All that piece and parcel of gut No. 108, admeasuring 1 H situated at Sitanaik Tanda, Tq. Kannad, District Aurangabad, , which is bounded as under:

(OA No.528/2024)

Page 9 of 10

[AMBADAS]

East: Rambai Rathod West: Mannya Thokal South: Kavitabai Gopinath, North: Hukumchand Rathod.

¶82

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged immovable properties and hypothecated articles/goods

¶83

etc., to recover its dues.

¶84

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶85

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

¶86

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶87

Sd/Pronounced in open court. (Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Place: Aurangabad Presiding Officer Date:.06.10.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶88

(OA No.528/2024)

¶89

Page 10 of 10

¶90

[AMBADAS]

Bank of Maharashtra v. Shaikh Rashid Shaikh Gani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Shaikh Rashid Shaikh Gani

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

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S Omkar Agency

Pramod Manikrao Joshi versus the Pandharpur Urban Co. Op. Bank Ltd. Pandharpur

Union Bank of India versus Rahul Abasaheb Jambhalkar

Union Bank of India versus Ganesh Sahebrao Ubale

Bank of Baroda versus Prakash Pralhad Salve

Union Bank of India versus Mangal Narayan Chavan