Partly allowed

Uco Bank v. Ganesh Nagave

DRT25 Aug 2025OA/641/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal partly allowed an original application filed by UCO Bank for recovery of dues. Against defendants defaulting on term loans and a rescheduled KCC account, the Tribunal ordered repayment of principal along with reduced future interest at 9% p.a., limiting hypothecated asset recovery due to lack of details but enforcing sale of mortgaged agricultural land.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to jointly/severally pay Rs.12,45,091/- and Rs.7,46,182/- with future interest @9% p.a.; mortgaged land to be sold for recovery; Recovery Certificate issued.

Uco Bank versus Ganesh Nagave — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on .. 12.08.2022 Registered on .. 19.04.2023 Decided on .. 25.08.2025 Duration .. Y—M—D 03--00--13

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 641/2023.

¶3

UCO Bank,

¶4

A Corporate Body constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 and having its head office at 10, B.T.M. Sarani, Kolkata and branch at - Market Yard, Indapur Road, Baramati, Taluka Baramati, District Pune.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 Shri Ganesh Dattatraya Nagave, Age Adult, Occ. : Agriculture, R/at : At and Post Bori, Taluka Indapur, District Pune 413 104.

¶8

2 Shri Dattatraya Jagannath Daphal, Age Adult, Occ. : Agriculture, R/at : At and Post Bori, Taluka Indapur, District Pune 413 104.

¶9

3 Shri Ashok Sambhaji Patil, Age Adult, Occ. : Agriculture, R/at : At and Post Bori, Taluka Indapur, District Pune 413 104.

¶10

Sanap ( OA No. 641/2023 ) 1 of 7

¶11

4 Shri Nilesh Dattoba Nagave, Age Adult, Occ. : Agriculture, R/at : At and Post Bori, Taluka Indapur, District Pune 413 104.

¶12

5 Shri Dnyaneshwar Bhagwan Jori, Age Adult, Occ. : Agriculture, R/at : At and Post Bori, Taluka Indapur, District Pune 413 104. … Defendants

¶13

Appearances :- For Applicant Advocate R.B. Ganbote. For Defendants Ex parte.

¶14

Total Claim Amount – Rs.23,57,918/-

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

(Delivered on 25^th August, 2025)

¶17

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.23,57,918/- together with future interest @14.85 and 13.95% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶18

Brief facts of the application are as under :- As per the loan application dated 04.08.2012 of defendant No.1, the applicant Bank sanctioned the following loan facilities to defendant No.1 for Pipeline, for Grape Plantation and Crop loan respectively. Defendant Nos. 2

¶19

Sanap ( OA No. 641/2023 ) 2 of 7

¶20

and 3 stood guarantors for the loan facilities availed by defendant No.1.

¶21

Name of facility	Amount Rs.	Date of Sanction
1 Term Loan	4,00,000/-	04.08.2012
2 Term Loan	4,00,000/-	04.08.2012
3 KCC	3,00,000/-	04.08.2012

¶22

Thereafter, defendant Nos. 1, 4 and 5 approached the applicant Bank on 05.07.2014 and requested for rescheduling of KCC of Rs.3,00,000/-. Accordingly, the applicant Bank rescheduled KCC of Rs.3,00,000/- for defendant No.1 on 05.07.2014. Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 stood guarantors for the repayment of the rescheduled KCC loan availed by defendant No.1.

¶23

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants have executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank. Defendant No.1 has also mortgaged the properties i.e. all that piece and parcel of agriculture land bearing Gat No. 49 (P) admeasuring 15 Aar and Gat No. 832/2 (P) admeasuring 1H situated at village Bori, Taluka Indapur, District Pune, in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶24

Defendant No.1 has also executed Acknowledgments on 30.06.2016, 30.09.2017 and

¶25

Sanap ( OA No. 641/2023 ) 3 of 7

¶26

31.08.2020 in favour of the applicant Bank and thereby confirmed the balance outstanding in the loan accounts.

¶27

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Hence, the applicant Bank has classified the account of the defendants as Non Performing Asset in accordance with guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Therefore, on 23.07.2022, the applicant Bank issued Recall Notice to the defendants. Despite service of Notice, the defendants failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶28

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against the defendants as per Order dated 26.03.2025 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶29

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Shri Manoj Ambadas Panpatil, Chief Manager and Principal Officer of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1 to AW-32 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶30

Sanap ( OA No. 641/2023 ) 4 of 7

¶31

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

¶32

Since the defendants failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of the applicant Bank. However, the applicant Bank has claimed relief of Rs.3,66,645/- in respect of KCC loan account which was rescheduled. But the applicant Bank has also claimed relief of Rs.7,46,182/- in respect of rescheduled KCC loan account. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for reliefs as claimed except in respect of first KCC loan of which total outstanding amount is shown as Rs.3,66,645/- which was already rescheduled. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 were guarantors for first KCC and thereafter for rescheduled KCC account, defendant Nos.4 and 5 stood guarantors.

¶33

The applicant Bank has claimed relief in respect of 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.

¶34

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @14.85 and 13.95% per annum for Term Loans and KCC loan respectively. However, considering the facts of the case,

¶35

Sanap ( OA No. 641/2023 ) 5 of 7

¶36

I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶37

Hence, I pass the following order.

¶38

O R D E R

¶39

A} Original Application No. 641/2023 is partly allowed with proportionate costs against the defendants.

¶40

B} Defendant Nos.1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.12,45,091/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Ninety One only) towards two Term Loan accounts along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 12.08.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶41

C} Defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.7,46,182/(Rupees Seven Lakhs Forty Six Thousand One Hundred Eighty Two only) towards rescheduled KCC loan account along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 12.08.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶42

Sanap ( OA No. 641/2023 ) 6 of 7

¶43

D} The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the mortgaged properties i.e. all that piece and parcel of agriculture land bearing Gat No. 49 (P) admeasuring 15 Aar and Gat No. 832/2 (P) admeasuring 1H situated at village Bori, Taluka Indapur, District Pune, more particularly described in the Para Nos. 5.9 and 5.18 of the Original Application.

¶44

E} The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged property to recover its dues.

¶45

F} Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶46

G} The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant and defendants.

¶47

Sd/( Dilip G. Murumkar ) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 25.08.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶48

Sanap ( OA No. 641/2023 ) 7 of 7

Uco Bank v. Ganesh Nagave

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Ganesh Nagave

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

Idbi Bank versus Mahesh

Bank of Maharashtra versus Suresh Katkar

State Bank of India versus Satish Nikam

Canara Bank versus Ms Fatima Cellulars Prop. Mr. Farid Gaus MD Dastagir

Bank of India versus Hanumant Mali

Uco Bank versus Hirabai Shinde