Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sunanda Rajendra Mohite

DRT9 Sept 2025OA/751/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by Union Bank of India for recovery of a term loan defaulting by borrowers, modifying the interest rate to 9% per annum and securing the amount against mortgaged agricultural land.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to jointly and severally pay Rs. 28,08,767.23 with future interest at 9% per annum simple; bank entitled to sell secured properties.

Union Bank of India versus Sunanda Rajendra Mohite — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 07.09.2024 Registered on: 19.09.2024 Decided on: 09.09.2025 Duration: Y M D 01 00 02

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 751/2024

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 28,08,767.23/-

¶4

Union Bank of India,

¶5

A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking

¶6

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 Main Branch, Dhule through its Authorized Person, Mr. Bhatusing Shamsing Thakur (Branch Head), Age: 40 yrs., Occ.: Service, R/o. Station Road, Dhule.

… Applicant

Versus

(OA No.751/2024)

Page 1 of 8

[AMBADAS]

1. Mrs. Sunanda Rajendra Mohite Age: Major, Occu.: Agriculture, R/o.: At Ubhand Post Nandre Tq. & Dist. Dhule, 424302

¶13

2. Mr. Kapil Rajendra Mohite

¶14

Age: Major, Occu.: Agriculture, R/o.: At Ubhand Post Nandre Tq. & Dist. Dhule, 424302

¶15

3. Mr. Pankaj Rajendra Mohite Age: Major, Occu.: Agriculture, R/o.: At Ubhand Post Nandre Tq. & Dist. Dhule, 424302

¶16

4. Mr. Bhanudas Ratan Koli Age: Major, Occu.: Agriculture, R/o.: At Arni Tq. & Dist. Dhule, 42430

¶17

APPEARANCES

¶18

…Defendants

¶19

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

¶20

JUDGMENT Delivered on 09.09.2025

¶21

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 28,08,767.23/- ( Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs, Eight Thousand, Seven Hundred Sixty Seven and Twenty Three Paisa only), along with future interest from the date of

(OA No.751/2024)

Page 2 of 8

[AMBADAS]

filing of the Original Application, i.e., 07.09.2024, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶26

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶27

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendants No. 1 to 3 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 facility of Rs. 19,60,000/- vide sanction letter dated 22.06.2020 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for the aforesaid loan was @10.25% p.a. with half yearly rests. The Defendant also agreed to pay additional interest @2% by way of liquidated damages in the event of any default in repayment.

¶28

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendant executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letter, registered mortgage deed bearing daybook no. 817 dated 13.05.2020, letter of

(OA No.751/2024)

Page 3 of 8

[AMBADAS]

undertaking, demand promissory note, letter of continuity &

¶33

hypothecation agreement. Additionally defendant No. 4 stood as

¶34

guarantor for defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and executed deed of

¶35

guarantee on 22.06.2020 in favour of the Applicant Bank

¶36

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendant No. 1 to 3 created first charge over their immovable property under daybook no. 817 dated 13.05.2020 in favour of the Applicant Bank. The mortgage

¶37

was created in respect of the following property-

¶38

All that piece and parcel of Agricultural land admeasuring 1H 48R out of Gut No. 206/3, situated at Village Ubhand, Tq. & Dist. Dhule.

¶39

The applicant bank further states that in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant No. 1 to 3 also executed hypothecation agreement thereby hypothecating crops including standing crops grown on agricultural land.

¶40

The applicant bank contended that the defendants have failed to

¶41

keep their promise and commitments agreed by them with

(OA No.751/2024)

Page 4 of 8

[AMBADAS]

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 31.03.2023. Therefore, on 29.08.2024 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.

¶46

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were served through court commissioner. Hence, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 27.01.2025.

¶47

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Bhatusingh s/o Shamsing Thakur, Branch Head of

(OA No.751/2024)

Page 5 of 8

[AMBADAS]

the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Exh. A-1 to A-15 along with list of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶52

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

¶53

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.

¶54

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

¶55

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @10.25 p. a. on term loan from the date of filing i.e. 07.09.2024 of this application till realization of the claim amount. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future

(OA No.751/2024)

Page 6 of 8

[AMBADAS]

interest is granted @ 9% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶60

ORDER

¶61

(A) Original Application No. 751/2024 is allowed with costs.

¶62

(B) The defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 28,08,767.23/- ( Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs, Eight Thousand, Seven Hundred Sixty Seven and Twenty Three Paisa only), along with future interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 07.09.2024 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶63

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the mortgage of the following immovable property bearing daybook no. 817 vide registered mortgage deed dated 13.05.2020 at Exh. A-8 in list of documents Exh. 5.

¶64

All that piece and parcel of Agricultural land admeasuring 1H 48R out of Gut No. 206/3, situated at

(OA No.751/2024)

Page 7 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Village Ubhand, Tq. & Dist. Dhule which is bounded as per record of rights.

¶69

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

¶70

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶71

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

¶72

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶73

Sd/Pronounced in open court. (Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Place: Aurangabad Presiding Officer Date:.09.09.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶74

(OA No.751/2024)

¶75

Page 8 of 8

¶76

[AMBADAS]

Union Bank of India v. Sunanda Rajendra Mohite

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sunanda Rajendra Mohite

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

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Anand Govindrao Tipperse

Hdfc Bank versus Bramhadev Ankush Veer

Sunita Kailas Shelke versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Union Bank of India versus New Yash Enterprises

State Bank of India versus M/S Gokul Foods Products

Maharashtra Gramin Bank versus Katneshwar Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd.