Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/s Ujwala Patil Puc, a Proprietory Concern, through Its Proprietor: Smt Ujwala W/O Pankaj Patil @ Raut

DRT24 Dec 2025OA/555/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of dues of Rs. 32,99,678.98 from a proprietary concern and proprietor. The proceeding was concluded ex parte as defendants failed to appear, and the claim was established through documentary evidence.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed for joint and several payment of Rs. 32,99,678.98 and Rs. 1,21,861 with future interest at 9% p.a.; Recovery Certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus M/s Ujwala Patil Puc, a Proprietory… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Page 1 of 4 O.A. No. 555/2023

¶2

PRESENTED ON : 21.07.2023 REGISTERED ON : 21.09.2023

¶3

Exh. No. 14

¶4

BEFORE THE PO, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

¶5

Delivered by Pankaj Kumar O.A. No. 555/2023

¶6

State Bank of India

¶7

: Applicant

¶8

A corporation constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, SMECCC Branch, Shradhanand Peth Nagpur Nagpur – 400022 Phone No. 0712-6607938,

¶9

acting through its one of the principal officer Chief Manager i.e. Shri Julius Petrick Dsouza, Aged about 37 years, having authority to file the Original Application, which includes the authority to verify & sign the Original Application.

¶10

Versus

¶11

1. M/s Ujwala Patil PUC

¶12

: Defendants

¶13

A proprietary concern acting through its proprietor Smt. Ujwala W/o Pankaj Patil @ Raut Aged about : 43 Years, Occupation : Business, Office : C/o Shri Suhas Wasnik, Shop No. 2, Plot No. 73, Ambedkar Chowk, Indora, Near Buddha Vihar, Nagpur – 440014 Also at : Qtr No. I/64, Hanuman Mandir, Juna Kamptee Road, Javal Shanti Nagar Colony, VHB Shan H. Nagar Colony, Nagpur – 440009

¶14

2. Smt. Ujwala W/o Pankaj Patil @ Raut

¶15

Aged about : 43 Years, Occupation : Business,

¶16

Page 2 of 4 O.A. No. 555/2023

¶17

Office : C/o Shri Suhas Wasnik, Shop No. 2, Plot No. 73, Ambedkar Chowk, Indora, Near Buddha Vihar, Nagpur – 440014 Also at : Qtr No. I/64, Hanuman Mandir, Juna Kamptee Road, Javal Shanti Nagar Colony, VHB Shan H. Nagar Colony, Nagpur – 440009 PAN No. CTPPP0323P Aadhar No. 7509 4377 3233 Mob No. 9595154746 Email ID : [email protected]

¶18

Learned Counsel for Applicant	Adv. Y. Ramani Patro
Defendants Set Exparte On	01.10.2024

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

(Delivered on 24^th Day of December, 2025)

¶21

This is an application filed by the applicant U/s 19 of RDB Act, 1993 against defendants for recovery of aggregate amount of Rs. 34,33,884/- with costs and future interest with monthly rests from the date of filing of O.A. till its realization as under :

¶22

A. An amount of Rs. 33,12,022.98/- outstanding in Cash Credit Loan Account No. 39009237262 with costs and future interest @12.75% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of filing of O.A. till the date of realization.

¶23

Page 3 of 4 O.A. No. 555/2023

¶24

B. An amount of Rs. 1,21,861/- outstanding in GECL Loan Account No. 39366670368 with costs and future interest @9.25% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of filing of O.A. till the date of realization.

¶25

Though, defendant nos. 1 & 2 were duly served with the suit summons vide Exh. 11 & 12, they failed to cause appearance before this Tribunal to defend their case despite granting several adjournments. Hence, the proceeding against defendant nos. 1 & 2 was set exparte on 01.10.2024.

¶26

The applicant has filed its Claim Affidavit (Exh. 13) and List of Documents (Exh. 4), annexing therewith 13 documents. The original documents therein are marked as Exh. AW-1/1 to AW-1/12. It has been stated in the O.A. as well as in Claim Affidavit that penal interest of Rs. 12,344/- has been applied in the Cash Credit Loan Account.

¶27

Heard Learned counsel for the applicant.

¶28

As stated supra, defendants remained exparte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz. Exh. AW -1/1 to AW-1/12 marked on behalf of the applicant, clinches the claim of the applicant against defendants. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence adduced on behalf of applicant. Hence, defendants are liable to pay, jointly and severally, the claim of the applicant with costs and future interest. However, I am not inclined to allow penal interest of Rs. 12,344/- applied in Cash Credit Loan Account.

¶29

Hence, it is ordered as under:-

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Page 4 of 4 O.A. No. 555/2023

¶32

A] O.A. No. 555/2023 is allowed to the extent as under with costs.

¶33

B] Defendants to pay jointly and severally to the applicant bank an amount of Rs. 32,99,678.98/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakh Ninety Nine Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Eight and Paise Ninety Eight Only) outstanding in Cash Credit Loan Account No. 39009237262 with simple future interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of O.A. till its realization.

¶34

C] Defendants to pay jointly and severally to the applicant bank an amount of Rs. 1,21,861/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty One Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty One Only) outstanding in GECL Loan Account No. 39366670368 with simple future interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of O.A. till its realization.

¶35

D] It is declared that charge of outstanding dues is kept on hypothecated property of defendant no. 1 as described in Schedule-I annexed to O.A. and as referred in Exh. AW-1/2, AW-1/4, AW-1/6, AW1/8 & AW-1/10.

¶36

E] Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶37

F] The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the parties to this O.A at once.

¶38

Nagpur

¶39

Date: 24.12.2025

¶40

(Pankaj Kumar) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal Nagpur

State Bank of India v. M/s Ujwala Patil Puc, a Proprietory Concern, through Its Proprietor: Smt Ujwala W/O Pankaj Patil @ Raut

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/s Ujwala Patil Puc, a Proprietory Concern, through Its Proprietor: Smt Ujwala W/O Pankaj Patil @ Raut

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Chahat Ram

Yes Bank versus Arihant Udyog

Punjab National Bank versus Ashoka Kumar and Anr.

State Bank of India versus Sri Subash Sing Managing Director of M/S Hamro Pasal And Ors.

Sana Ginning Industries Prop Javed Ali Sajjad Ali versus The Akola Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Pristine Facility and Management Services Pvt. Lts