Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Rahul Abasaheb Jambhalkar

DRT4 Oct 2025OA/585/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad, allowed an original application by Union Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 35,18,295.59 and future interest against the defendant. The court proceeded ex-parte due to non-appearance, adjudicated the claim based on unrebutted evidence, and granted a charge over mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Ordered payment of Rs. 35,18,295.59 with future interest at 9% p.a.; charged respondent's mortgaged property; issued recovery certificate permitting sale of assets.

Union Bank of India versus Rahul Abasaheb Jambhalkar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 01.04.2024 Registered on: 06.08.2024 Decided on: 04.10.2025 Duration: Y M D 01 06 03

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 585/2024

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 35,18,295.59/Union Bank of India, A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970, Having its Registered office at 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 & having branches amongst the other places at New Osmanpura, Aurangabad and having it’s Asset Recovery Branch (ARB), at Plot No. 3, 1^st Floor, Sahakar Colony, Shahnoorwadi, Aurangabad, through it’s Power of Attorney, Mr. Abhaykumar Dattatray Baviskar, (Chief Manager), Age: 38 years, Occ.: Service, R/o. Plot … Applicant No. 3, 1^st Floor, Sahakar Colony, Aurangabad

(OA No.585/2024)

Page 1 of 9

[AMBADAS]

Versus

Mr. Rahul Abasaheb Jambhalkar Prop. of M/s Sairaj Motor Rewinding Age: Major, Occu.: Business, R/o.: At Jambhalkar Vasti, Rashin, Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar 414403.

¶9

AND/OR

¶10

Mr. Rahul Abasaheb Jambhalkar Prop. of M/s Sairaj Motor Rewinding Age: Major, Occu.: Business, R/o.: At Plot No. 5, Gut No. 1108/1, Rashin, Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar 414403.

¶11

APPEARANCES

¶12

…Defendant

¶13

For the Applicant Mr. K.D. Pande -Advocate For Defendant Ex-parte

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

Delivered on 04.10.2025

¶16

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the

¶17

recovery of a sum of Rs. 35,18,295.59/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs, Eighteen Thousand, Two Hundred Ninety Five and Fifty Nine Paisa only), along with future interest from the date of filing of the

(OA No.585/2024)

Page 2 of 9

[AMBADAS]

Original Application, i.e., 01.04.2024, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendant.

¶22

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶23

The applicant bank states that Defendant approached the applicant bank seeking financial assistance in the form of Cash Credit Facility. Upon scrutiny of the submitted documents, the applicant bank sanctioned a Cash Credit Facility of Rs. 10,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 20.12.2018. The agreed rate of interest was @10.30% p.a. with monthly rests. The defendant also agreed to pay an additional interest @ 2% by way of liquidated damages in case of default in repayment.

¶24

Thereafter, the defendant had approached to the applicant bank and requested for a term loan facility under GECL. Upon considering the request and need of the defendant, the applicant bank sanctioned a term loan facility under GECL scheme of Rs. 1,96,000/- vide sanction letter dated 10.06.2020 on certain terms

(OA No.585/2024)

Page 3 of 9

[AMBADAS]

and conditions. The Agreed rate of interest was @7.80% p.a. with monthly rests. The defendant also agreed to pay an additional interest @ 2% by way of liquidated damages in case of default in repayment.

¶29

Subsequently, the defendant again approached to the applicant bank and requested for the renewal & enhancement of the above referred Cash Credit facility and sanctioning of a fresh term loan facility. Upon considering the request and need of the defendant, the applicant bank enhanced Cash Credit facility to Rs. 19,00,000/- & sanctioned term loan facility under CGTMSE scheme of Rs. 15,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 04.03.2021 on certain terms and conditions. The Agreed rate of interest was @8.55% p.a. with monthly rests. The defendant also agreed to pay an additional interest @ 2% by way of liquidated damages in case of default in repayment.

(OA No.585/2024)

Page 4 of 9

[AMBADAS]

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendant executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letters, hypothecation agreements, demand promissory notes, letters of undertaking, letter of continuity, registered mortgage deeds bearing daybook nos. 4205 & 1132 dated 21.12.2018 & 16.03.2021 etc., in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶34

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendant created first charge over his immovable property by executing registered simple mortgage deeds bearing daybook nos. 4205 & 1132 dated 24.12.2018 & 16.03.2021. The mortgage was created in respect of the following property:

¶35

All that piece & parcel of Plot No. 5 admeasuring 191.72 sq.mtrs. out of Gut No. 1108/1, situated at Village Rashin, Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar, which is bounded as under: East: Internal Road, West: Gut No. 1108/7P, North: Plot No. 4, South: Plot No. 6

(OA No.585/2024)

Page 5 of 9

[AMBADAS]

The applicant bank contended that the defendant has failed to keep the promise and commitments agreed by him with regard to due repayment of the loan amount. The defendant 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 defendant to pay with the agreed rate of interest thereon, but the defendant failed and neglected to pay the same. The loan account of the defendants became irregular and classified as NPA on 01.04.2023. Therefore, on 29.02.2024 the applicant bank issued legal notice to the defendant through their advocate. Despite service of Notices, the defendant failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶40

The defendant failed to appear in matter though he was served through RPAD. Hence, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 24.02.2025.

(OA No.585/2024)

Page 6 of 9

[AMBADAS]

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Abhaykumar Dattatray Baviskar, Chief Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Exh. A-1 to A-35 along with list of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶45

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

¶46

Since the defendant 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.

¶47

The applicant Bank has claimed charge over immovable property of the borrower which is mortgaged in favour of the applicant bank.

¶48

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @12.50% p.a. from the date of filing i.e. 01.04.2024 of this application till

(OA No.585/2024)

Page 7 of 9

[AMBADAS]

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.

¶53

ORDER

¶54

(A) Original Application No. 585/2024 is allowed with costs.

¶55

(B) The defendant shall pay to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 35,18,295.59/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs, Eighteen Thousand, Two Hundred Ninety Five and Fifty Nine Paisa only), along with future interest @ 9% per annum (simple) on outstanding amount from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 01.04.2024 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶56

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the mortgage of the following immovable properties bearing daybook nos. 4205 & 1132 vide registered

(OA No.585/2024)

Page 8 of 9

[AMBADAS]

mortgage deeds dated 24.12.2018 & 16.03.2021 at Exh. A-9 & A-26 respectively in list of documents Exh. 5.

¶61

All that piece & parcel of Plot No. 5 admeasuring 191.72 sq.mtrs. out of Gut No. 1108/1, situated at Village Rashin, Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar, which is bounded as under: East: Internal Road, West: Gut No. 1108/7P, North: Plot No. 4, South: Plot No. 6

¶62

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged immovable property and hypothecated articles/goods etc., to recover its dues.

¶63

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶64

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

¶65

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

Pronounced in open court. (Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Place: Aurangabad Presiding Officer Date:.04.10.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶68

(OA No.585/2024)

¶69

Page 9 of 9

¶70

[AMBADAS]

Union Bank of India v. Rahul Abasaheb Jambhalkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Rahul Abasaheb Jambhalkar

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

Union Bank of India versus Rehan Enterprises

Bank of Maharashtra versus Narayan Khandoji Budhwant

Union Bank of India versus Chandrakant Maruti Mohite

Bank of Maharashtra versus Poonam Navnath Andhale

Canara Bank versus M/s a P Fasteners

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