Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Upendra Koladkar

DRT5 Dec 2025OA/605/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Bank of Baroda's application for recovery of overdraft dues against defendant Mr. Upendra Koladkar. The court directed payment of principal with future interest at 9% p.a. and issuance of recovery certificate, declining the claim for specific hypothecated assets due to lack of detail.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Rs.25,56,687/- with future interest @9% p.a. from 27.10.2021; Recovery Certificate to be issued.

Bank of Baroda versus Upendra Koladkar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 27.10.2021 Registered on: 24.06.2022 Decided on: 05.12.2025 Duration: Y M D 04 01 08

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.605/2022

¶3

Bank of Baroda ,

¶4

A body corporate constituted by Banking companies (Acquisition& Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and having its Head Office at Baroda House, Mandavi, Baroda-390 006, Gujarat State and one of its Branch at: Bank of Baroda, Mhatre Bhawan, Opp. New Trimurti Hospital, Chinchapada Pen, Taluka Pen, District Raigad-402 107.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Upendra Anant Koladkar R/at Sant Goroba Kumbhar Chowk, Near Ambika Mandir, Kumbhar Ali, Pen, Raigad-402 107.

¶8

… Defendant

¶9

APPEARANCES

¶10

For the Applicant For the Defendant

¶11

Mr. Yogesh Hirve Ex-parte.

¶12

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.25,56,687.48Ps.

¶13

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 5^th December, 2025)

(OA No.605/2022)

Page 1 of 4

[ANIL]

The Applicant Bank has filed the present Application for recovery of Rs.25,56,687.48Ps towards Overdraft Loan A/c No.04330400000218 to the applicant bank together with future interest @10.60% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of filing of this application till full repayment/ realization of entire dues from the defendant.

¶18

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶19

The defendant approached the applicant Bank and requested to grant Overdraft Limit of Rs.25 Lakhs as a Working Capital for his business.

¶20

The applicant Bank considered the request of the defendant favorably and sanctioned Overdraft Limit of Rs.25,00,000/- on 07.01.2019 as a Working Capital for his business on certain terms and conditions, which were accepted by the defendant.

¶21

Defendant executed necessary loan transaction and security documents on 08.01.2019 in favour of the applicant Bank including agreement of Hypothecation Agreement to secure the repayment of Overdraft Limit, as set out in paragraph No.5.6 of the Original Application.

¶22

The applicant Bank further contended that defendant was regular in payment of EMI’s and made persistent default in repayment of the said Overdraft Facility. The applicant time and again requested the defendant to repay the loan as per agreed schedule. But defendant deliberately and knowingly failed to repay

(OA No.605/2022)

Page 2 of 4

[ANIL]

as agreed in spite of repeated requests by the applicant. Therefore, the loan account of the defendant became NPA on 31.03.2021.

¶27

Therefore, the applicant bank issued Recall Notice through Advocate Yogesh Hirve to the defendant for payment of total outstanding dues. The notice was duly served on the defendant, however, in spite of receipt of notice, the defendant did not pay the dues of the applicant.

¶28

Hence, this application is filed.

¶29

The defendant failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per order dated 30.08.2024 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶30

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Subhash Kumar Singh, Chief Manager, which supports the case of the applicant Bank elucidated in the application. The applicant Bank has produced on record the documents AW-1 to AW-15 [The AW-1 is notarized true copy and AW-2 to AW-15 are original documents], which corroborate the case of the applicant Bank.

¶31

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

(OA No.605/2022)

Page 3 of 4

[ANIL]

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

¶36

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @10.60% p.a. for Overdraft Loan Facility. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of opinion that if future interest is granted @9% p.a., it would be just and reasonable.

¶37

Hence, I pass the following order:-

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(A) Original Application No.605/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶40

(B) Defendant shall pay to the applicant Bank towards Overdraft Loan account a sum of Rs.25,56,687/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Seven only) with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e.27.10.2021 till full realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶41

¶42

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

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

Place : Pune Date : 05.12.2025

¶45

(Dilip G Murumkar) Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶46

(OA No.605/2022)

¶47

Page 4 of 4

¶48

[ANIL]

Bank of Baroda v. Upendra Koladkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Upendra Koladkar

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

Bank of Baroda versus Vedant Builders and Developers

Bank of India versus Dattatrey Khubikar

Bank of India versus Vijaya Kharat

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S Needa Enterprises Prop. Bachha Moiuuddin Khan

Bank of Maharashtra versus Anantrao Ingulkar

Federal Bank versus Alaka Kerimane