Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Akrur Sukhdev Pimpale

DRT17 Oct 2025OA/686/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed Union Bank of India's application for recovery of Rs. 38,51,374.75 plus future interest at 9% p.a. secured by mortgaged agricultural land in favor of Union Bank of India against defaulting borrowers.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally to pay Rs. 38,51,374.75 plus future interest @ 9% p.a. (simple); amount secured by sale of mortgaged properties; Recovery Certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus Akrur Sukhdev Pimpale — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 11.06.2024 Registered on: 28.08.2024 Decided on: 17.10.2025 Duration: Y M D 01 04 06

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 686/2024

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 38,51,374.75/-

¶4

Union Bank of India,

¶5

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 Station Road, Dist. Ahmednagar and having it’s Asset Recovery Branch (ARB), at Plot No. 3, 1^st Floor, Sahakar Colony, Shahanoorwadi, Aurangabad, through its Power of Attorney, Mr. Abhaykumar Dattatray Baviskar, (Chief Manager), Age: 38 years, Occ.: Service, R/o. Plot No. 3, 1^st Floor, Sahakar Colony, Shahnoorwadi, Aurangabad 431005. … Applicant

Versus

(OA No.686/2024)

Page 1 of 11

[AMBADAS]

1. Mr. Akrur Sukhdev Pimpale, Age: Major, Occu.: Agri., R/o.: At Post Dehore, Near Water Tank, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar 414111.

¶11

2. Mr. Uddhav Sukhdev Pimpale,

¶12

Age: Major, Occu.: Agri., R/o.: At Post Dehore, Near Water Tank, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar 414111.

¶13

3. Mr. Dattatray Sukhdev Pimpale,

¶14

Age: Major, Occu.: Agri., R/o.: At Post Dehore, Near Water Tank, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar 414111.

¶15

4. Smt. Rangubai Sukhdev Pimpale (deceased) Through her legal representatives, i) Mr. Akrur Sukhdeo Pimpale Age: Major, Occu.: Agri., R/o.: At Post Dehore, Near Water Tank, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar 414111.

¶16

ii) Mr. Uddhav Sukhdev Pimpale,

¶17

Age: Major, Occu.: Agri., R/o.: At Post Dehore, Near Water Tank, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar 414111.

¶18

iii) Mr. Dattatray Sukhdev Pimpale, Age: Major, Occu.: Agri., R/o.: At Post Dehore, Near Water Tank, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar 414111.

…Defendants

(OA No.686/2024)

Page 2 of 11

[AMBADAS]

APPEARANCES

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

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Delivered on 17.10.2025

¶27

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the

¶28

recovery of a sum of Rs. 38,51,374.75/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lacs, Fifty One Thousand, Three Hundred Seventy Four and Seventy Five Paisa only), along with future interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 11.06.2024, until the date of realization

¶29

of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶30

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶31

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendant No. 1 to 4 approached and requested the Applicant Bank for Agri. Term loan facility. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the Defendants, the Applicant Bank sanctioned Agri. Term loan facility of Rs. 14,76,000/- vide sanction letter dated 08.03.2011

¶32

on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for

(OA No.686/2024)

Page 3 of 11

[AMBADAS]

the aforesaid loan was @12.75% p.a. with half yearly rests. The

¶37

Defendants also agreed to pay additional interest @2% by way of liquidated damages in the event of any default in repayment.

¶38

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendant No. 1 to 4 executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letter, letter of undertaking, hypothecation agreement, demand promissory note, registered declaration (Anusuchi) u/s. 5 (1) of the Maharashtra Provision of Facilities for Agriculture Credit by Banks Act, 1974 dated 17.03.2011 etc., in favour of the applicant bank.

¶39

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendants created first charge over their immovable property by executing registered declaration (Anusuchi) u/s. 5 (1) of the Maharashtra Provision of Facilities for Agriculture Credit by Banks Act, 1974 dated 17.03.2011 in favour

(OA No.686/2024)

Page 4 of 11

[AMBADAS]

of the Applicant Bank. The mortgage was created in respect of the following properties-

¶44

i) All that piece and parcel of agricultural land admeasuring 0 H 73 R, out of Gut No. 22/1/3, situated at Village Dehere, Tq. And Dist. Ahmednagar, which is bounded as under: East: Gut No. 22/1/2, West: Gut No. 20/1/1, South: Gut No. 22/1/1, North: Survey No. 295.

¶45

ii) All that piece and parcel of agricultural land admeasuring 0 H 73 R, out of Gut No. 22/1/1, situated at Village Dehere, Tq. And Dist. Ahmednagar, which is bounded as under: East: Survey No. 44, West: Gut No. 22/1/1, South: Gut No. 22/1/1A, North: Survey No. 295.

¶46

iii) All that piece and parcel of agricultural land admeasuring 0 H 73 R, out of Gut No. 22/1/2, situated at Village Dehere, Tq. And Dist. Ahmednagar, which is bounded as under: East: Gut No. 22/1/2, West: Gut No. 20/1/3, South: Gut No. 22/1/1A, North: Survey No. 285.

¶47

iv) All that piece and parcel of agricultural land admeasuring 0 H 81 R, out of Gut No. 20/1/1A, situated at Village Dehere, Tq. And Dist. Ahmednagar, which is bounded as under: East: Gut No. 20/1/1, West: Gut No. 20/2,

(OA No.686/2024)

Page 5 of 11

[AMBADAS]

South: Gut No. 22/2, North: Survey No. 285.

¶52

v) All that piece and parcel of agricultural land admeasuring 1 H 54 R, out of Gut No. 20/1/B, situated at Village Dehere, Tq. And Dist. Ahmednagar, which is bounded as under: East: Gut No. 20/1/3, West: Gut No. 20, South: Gut No. 22/2, North: Gut No. 22/1/2.

¶53

The applicant bank contended that the defendants have failed to keep their promise and commitments agreed by them with regard to due repayment of the loan amount. The defendants 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 defendants to pay with the agreed rate of interest thereon, but the defendants failed and neglected to pay the same. The loan account of the defendants became irregular and classified as NPA on 30.09.2019. Therefore, on 22.02.2024 the applicant bank issued legal notice to the defendants through their advocate. Despite service of Notices, the

(OA No.686/2024)

Page 6 of 11

[AMBADAS]

defendants failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶58

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were served through paper publication. Hence, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 26.03.2025.

¶59

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-16 along with list of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶60

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

¶61

Since the defendants 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.

(OA No.686/2024)

Page 7 of 11

[AMBADAS]

The applicant Bank has claimed charge over immovable properties of the borrowers which are mortgaged in favour of the applicant bank.

¶66

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @12.75 p. a. on term loan from the date of filing i.e. 11.06.2024 of this application till 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), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶67

ORDER

¶68

(A) Original Application No. 686/2024 is allowed with

¶69

costs.

¶70

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 38,51,374.75/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lacs, Fifty One Thousand, Three Hundred Seventy Four and Seventy Five Paisa only), along with future interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 11.06.2024 till full

(OA No.686/2024)

Page 8 of 11

[AMBADAS]

payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶75

¶76

mortgage of the following immovable properties. Vide registered declaration (Anusuchi) u/s. 5 (1) of the Maharashtra Provision of Facilities for Agriculture Credit by Banks Act, 1974 dated 17.03.2011 at Exh. A-7 in the list of documents Exh. 5.

¶77

¶78

ii) All that piece and parcel of agricultural land admeasuring 0 H 73 R, out of Gut No. 22/1/1, situated at Village Dehere, Tq. And Dist. Ahmednagar, which is bounded as under:

¶79

East: Survey No. 44, West: Gut No. 22/1/1, South: Gut No. 22/1/1A, North: Survey No. 295.

(OA No.686/2024)

Page 9 of 11

[AMBADAS]

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

(OA No.686/2024)

Page 10 of 11

[AMBADAS]

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶91

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

¶92

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶93

Sd/-

¶94

Pronounced in open court. (Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Place: Aurangabad Presiding Officer Date:.17.10.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶95

(OA No.686/2024)

¶96

Page 11 of 11

¶97

[AMBADAS]

Union Bank of India v. Akrur Sukhdev Pimpale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Akrur Sukhdev Pimpale

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sugriv Jambuwant Ganje

Icici Bank Limited versus Shiraj Ibrahim Shaikh

State Bank of India versus M/s Shri Shivshankar Cellular

Union Bank of India versus Swati Pandurang Kaulwar

Bank of Baroda versus Sunita Himmatsing Kushwah

Hdfc Bank versus Amol Chimnaji Dhavale