Allowed

Bank of India v. Tushar Nathuram Mahadik, Prop of M/S. Ved Motors

DRT6 Aug 2025OA/603/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal ordered the defendant borrower to repay a dues of Rs.38,98,582 to Bank of India with future interest at 9% p.a. from the filing date, dismissing the claim regarding hypothecated assets due to lack of detailed description. The application was allowed ex-parte.

What did the court decide?

Repayment of Rs.38,98,582 with future interest at 9% p.a. from 26.10.2021 till realization; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Bank of India versus Tushar Nathuram Mahadik, Prop… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on : 26.10.2021 Registered on : 23.06.2022 Decided on : 06.08.2025 Duration : Y M D 03 09 10

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.603/2022.

¶3

BANK OF INDIA

¶4

A Body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings Act, 1970 and having its Head Office at Star House, Plot No.C-5, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 015 and its branch address at Survey No.8, Yashwant Plaza, Yashwant Nagar, Opposite Radison Hotel, Kharadi, Pune-411 014.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Tushar Nathuram Mahadik Prop. - M/s Ved Motors, R/at – (a) - 301, Vijay Hights, Gulmohar Park, Wagholi, Pund – 412 107. (b) - C-6, Ashapura Co-Op. Hsg Soc. Manvelpada Virar East, … Defendant Mumbai-401 305.

¶8

APPEARANCES

¶9

For the Applicant Mrs. Tejashri Hirve - Advocate For the Defendant Ex parte

¶10

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.38,98,582.13Ps.

(OA No.603/2022)

Page 1 of 4

[ANIL]

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 6^th August, 2025)

¶15

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of Rs.38,98,582.13Ps. together with future interest thereon @10.15% p.a. under CC Loan A/c No.055530110000099 from the date of filing of the original application and thereafter as such rate till repayment/realization of entire dues from the defendant.

¶16

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶17

Defendant is borrower and Sole Proprietor of M/s Ved Motors. As per the request letter dated 14.03.2019 of the defendant, the applicant bank has sanctioned Cash Credit Facility of Rs.30 lakhs on 30.03.2019, on certain terms and conditions.

¶18

In order to secure the credit facilities, the defendant has executed necessary loan transaction and security documents, as mentioned in Para No.5.5 & 5.6 of the Original Application.

¶19

The defendant also agreed to abide by all the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement and to pay all the charges and interest leviable in case of any default in repaying the bank dues. 3. It is further contended that after availing and utilizing credit facility, the defendant failed to repay the loan amounts as per terms of sanction. Hence, the loan account was classified as NonPerforming Asset on 31.03.2021, as per Reserve Bank of India norms.

¶20

The defendant failed and neglected to comply with terms and conditions on which the said loan facility was granted. The

(OA No.603/2022)

Page 2 of 4

[ANIL]

defendant did not pay the installments on account of Cash Credit Loan Account. Hence, the applicant bank issued Loan Recall Notice on 19.08.2021 through their Advocate Mrs. Tejashree Hirve to the defendant calling upon to pay the outstanding amounts. Despite service of notice, the defendant failed and neglected to comply with the demand in the said Notice.

¶25

Hence, this application is filed.

¶26

Defendant failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against it vide order dated 15.10.2024 passed below the Application (Exhibit-01).

¶27

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Kunwar Singh, Senior Manager, which supports the case of the applicant elucidated in the application.

¶28

The applicant bank has produced in evidence the original loan documents at Sr.Nos.AW-1/1 to AW-1/14, which corroborate the case of the applicant bank.

¶29

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

¶30

Since the defendant 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.

(OA No.603/2022)

Page 3 of 4

[ANIL]

The applicant bank has claimed relief in respect of hypothecated assets. However, there is no detailed description with respect to the hypothecated assets, in the hypothecation agreement. Therefore, the relief in terms of hypothecated assets cannot be granted.

¶35

Considering the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple) for the said loan facility, it would be just and reasonable.

¶36

Hence, I pass the following order: -

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(A) Original Application No.603/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶39

(B) Defendant shall pay to the Applicant Bank Rs.38,98,582 /- ( Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Two only) towards Cash Credit Account No. 055530110000099 with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e.26.10.2021 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶40

¶41

(D) The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant and defendant. Sd/-

¶42

Place : Pune (Dilip G. Murumkar) Date: 06.08.2025 Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶43

(OA No.603/2022)

¶44

Page 4 of 4

¶45

[ANIL]

Bank of India v. Tushar Nathuram Mahadik, Prop of M/S. Ved Motors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Tushar Nathuram Mahadik, Prop of M/S. Ved Motors

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

Punjab National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus M/S. Jagtap Press Components Prop. Mr. Yogesh Kakasaheb Jagtap

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sambhaji

Punjab National Bank versus M/S. Darshana Transport Prop. Mrs. Surekha Manoj Lunkad

Federal Bank versus Shankar

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S Sai Sales Corporation Prop Mrs. Santosh Vijay Jalan

Idbi Bank versus Rajaram Murari Kattikar