Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Suryabhan Ramkrishna Shinde

DRT20 Aug 2025OA/718/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad, allowed an original application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of a defaulting term loan. The court recognized the claim of Rs. 34,89,099.01, reduced the claimed future interest to 11% p.a., and directed the sale of mortgaged properties to recover dues.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs. 34,89,099.01 with future interest at 11% p.a. simple from filing till realization, secured by sale of mortgaged properties.

Union Bank of India versus Suryabhan Ramkrishna Shinde — DRT (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Presented on: 29.08.2024 Registered on: 10.09.2024 Decided on: 20.08.2025 Duration: Y M D 00 11 21

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.718/2024

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 34,89,099.01/-

¶4

Union Bank of India

¶5

(Erstwhile “Corporation Bank”) 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-40021 & having branches amongst other places at Rahuri, Tq Rahuri. Dist. Ahmednagar, through its Power of Attorney holder, Mr. Prashant Shantaram Kalhapure (Branch Manager), Age: 40 yrs, Occu: Service, R/o.: Rahuri, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar 413710.

… Applicant

(OA No.718/2024)

Page 1 of 10

[AMBADAS]

Versus

Mr. Suryabhan Ramkrishna Shinde, Age: Major, Occu.: Agriculture, R/o.: At Post Nau Gavthan, Tq. Shrirampur Dist. Ahmednagar 413710

¶12

Mr. Pratap Suryabhan Shinde, Age: Major, Occu.: Agriculture, R/o.: At Post Nau Gavthan, Tq. Shrirampur Dist. Ahmednagar 413710

¶13

Mrs. Manisha Annasaheb Gagare, Age: Major, Occu.: Agriculture, R/o.: At Post Chincholi, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar 413710

¶14

…Defendants

¶15

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

¶16

JUDGMENT Delivered on 20.08.2025

¶17

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 34,89,099.01/- ( Rupees Thirty Four Lacs Eighty Nine Thousand Ninety Nine And One Paisa only), along

(OA No.718/2024)

Page 2 of 10

[AMBADAS]

with further interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 29.08.2024, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶22

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶23

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendants No. 1 & 2 had approached and requested the Applicant Bank for a Term loan facility. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the Defendants, the Applicant Bank sanctioned a Term loan (CKFM) facility of Rs. 17,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 24.12.2012 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for the aforesaid loan was @12.35% p.a. with half yearly rests applicable. The Defendants also agreed to pay additional interest of @2% by way of liquidated damages in the event of any default in repayment.

¶24

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendants executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letter, deed of Hypothecation,

(OA No.718/2024)

Page 3 of 10

[AMBADAS]

demand promissory note, request letter, letter of undertaking

¶29

registered mortgage deed bearing daybook no. 36 dated 03.01.2013. Additionally defendant No. 3 stood as guarantor for

¶30

defendant Nos. 1 & 2 and executed deed of guarantee on 04.01.2013 in favour of the Applicant Bank

¶31

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities sanctioned to them, the Defendants created first charge over their immovable property under mortgage deed bearing daybook no. 36 dated 03.01.2013 in favour of the Applicant Bank. The mortgage was created in respect of the following properties –

¶32

i) All that piece and parcel of agricultural land admeasuring 3 H 59 R out of Gut No. 72 (part) situated at Village Naur, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar which is bounded as under:

¶33

East: Gut No. 69 & 73 West: Gut No. 70 & 71 North: Gut No. 67 & 69 South: Gut No. 78

(OA No.718/2024)

Page 4 of 10

[AMBADAS]

ii) All that piece and parcel of agricultural land admeasuring 0 H 82 R out of Gut No. 67 (part) situated at Village Naur, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar which is bounded as under:

¶38

East: Chari No. 20 West: Gut No. 66 North: Gut No. 64 South: Land out of Gut No. 72

¶39

iii) All that piece and parcel of agricultural land admeasuring 0 H 01 R out of Gut No. 111 (part) situated at Village Babhulgaon (Ganga), Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad which is bounded as under:

¶40

East: Land of Sahebrao & Bhagwat Wakchaure West: Godavari River North: Land out of Gut No. 111 South: Land out of Gut No. 111

¶41

The applicant bank further states that in order to secure the loan, the defendant also executed deed of Hypothecation, thereby hypothecating pump sets, pipelines and other movables purchased out of Bank’s finance alongwith crops including standing crops grown etc.

¶42

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

¶43

failed to operate the loan account properly and failed to pay the

(OA No.718/2024)

Page 5 of 10

[AMBADAS]

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 30.03.2020. Therefore, on 03.08.2024 the applicant bank issued legal notice to the defendants through their advocate. Despite service of Notices, the defendants failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶48

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were served through RPAD. Hence, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 01.04.2025.

¶49

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Mr. Prashant Shantaram Kalhapur, Branch Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Exh. A-1 to A-22 along with list of

(OA No.718/2024)

Page 6 of 10

[AMBADAS]

documentsExh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶54

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

¶55

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.

¶56

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

¶57

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @12.35 p. a. on the term loan from the date of filing i.e. 29.08.2024 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 @ 11 % per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

(OA No.718/2024)

Page 7 of 10

[AMBADAS]

ORDER

(A) Original Application No.718/2024 is allowed with costs.

¶63

(B) The defendants shall jointly and severally shall pay to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 34,89,099.01/- ( Rupees Thirty Four Lacs Eighty Nine Thousand Ninety Nine And One Paisa only), along with future interest @ 11 % per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 29.08.2024 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶64

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the mortgage of the following immovable properties bearing daybook no. 36 vide simple mortgage deed dated 03.01.2013 at Exh A-7 in list of documents Exh. 5

¶65

i) All that piece and parcel of agricultural land admeasuring 3 H 59 R out of Gut No. 72 (part) situated at Village Naur, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar which is bounded as under:

¶66

East: Gut No. 69 & 73 West: Gut No. 70 & 71

(OA No.718/2024)

Page 8 of 10

[AMBADAS]

North: Gut No. 67 & 69 South: Gut No. 78

¶71

ii) All that piece and parcel of agricultural land admeasuring 0 H 82 R out of Gut No. 67 (part) situated at Village Naur, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar which is bounded as under:

¶72

East: Chari No. 20 West: Gut No. 66 North: Gut No. 64 South: Land out of Gut No. 72

¶73

iii) All that piece and parcel of agricultural land admeasuring 0 H 01 R out of Gut No. 111 (part) situated at Village Babhulgaon (Ganga), Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad which is bounded as under:

¶74

East: Land of Sahebrao & Bhagwat Wakchaure West: Godavari River North: Land out of Gut No. 111 South: Land out of Gut No. 111

¶75

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

¶76

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

(OA No.718/2024)

Page 9 of 10

[AMBADAS]

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

¶81

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶82

Pronounced in open court. Place: Aurangabad Date:. 20.08.2025

¶83

(Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶84

(OA No.718/2024)

¶85

Page 10 of 10

¶86

[AMBADAS]

Union Bank of India v. Suryabhan Ramkrishna Shinde

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Suryabhan Ramkrishna Shinde

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S Sai Makers

Vishwanath Rangnathrao Ghuge versus Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. Aurangabad

New Aqsa Medical and General Stores versus Bank of Baroda

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S Bramhi Print and Pack

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/s Jai Shriram Petroleum

State Bank of India versus Shriram Madhukarrao Kalyankar