Allowed

Bank of India v. Sahebrao Rupsing Rathod

DRT23 Dec 2025OA/763/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a recovery application, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Bank of India's claim against the borrower and guarantor. The court reduced the claimed future interest rate to 9% per annum and directed the issuance of a recovery certificate secured by a mortgage.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs. 31,19,102/- with future interest @9% p.a. from 27.07.2018; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Bank of India versus Sahebrao Rupsing Rathod — Money Laundering | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on .. 27.07.2018 Registered on .. 20.04.2023 Decided on .. 23.12.2025 Duration .. Y—M—D 07--04--26

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer)

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 763/2023.

¶4

Bank of India,

¶5

A Bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and having its head office at Star House, C-5, G Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400051 and branch at – Kavathe Mahankal, Taluka Kavathe Mahankal, District Sangli 416 405.

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

1 Mr. Sahebrao Rupsing Rathod, Age Adult, Occ. Agriculture, Add. : A/P Vasur Khurd, Taluka Manvat, District Parbhani 431 505.

¶9

2 Shri Mahankali Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Incorporated and registered under the provision of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 having

¶10

Sanap ( OA No. 763/2023 ) 1 of 7

¶11

Regd. Office – At Post Kavathe Mahankal, Taluka Kavathe Mahankal, District Sangli - 416 405.

¶12

3 Sangli District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., Incorporated and registered under the provision of the Maharashtra Cooperative. Societies Act, 1960 having Regd. Office at – SDCC HO, Pushpraj Chowk, Sangli - 416 416. … Defendants

¶13

Appearances :- For Applicant Advocate Satyen Jagtap. For Defendants Ex parte.

¶14

Total Claim Amount – Rs.31,19,102/-

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

(Delivered on 23^rd December, 2025)

¶17

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.31,19,102/- together with future interest @13.45% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

¶18

Brief facts of the application are as under :-

¶19

Defendant No.1 is a borrower and defendant No. 2 is guarantor for discharging of the loan liability of defendant No.1 granted by the applicant Bank to defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 has created first charge by way of

¶20

Sanap ( OA No. 763/2023 ) 2 of 7

¶21

mortgaging the properties to defendant No.3, which are mortgaged to the applicant Bank by way of second charge. Therefore, defendant No.3 is joined in this Application as necessary party and no relief has been claimed against defendant No.3.

¶22

Defendant No. 2 carries on business of manufacturing of sugar and by-products out of sugar and avails services of Harvesting and Transport contractors in every crushing season for Harvesting and Transportation of Sugarcane from the fields of agriculturists to the Sugar Mill. Defendant No. 2 proposed to disburse loans / advances to 282 Truck / Tractors operators / bullock carts operators for crushing season 2013-14.

¶23

As per the loan application of defendant No.2, the applicant Bank sanctioned the aggregate credit/demand loan facility of Rs.2520.00 Lakhs to 282 borrowers vide Sanction Letter dated 19.08.2013. At the instance of defendant No.2, defendant No. 1 requested the applicant Bank for demand loan facility for Harvesting / Transporting of sugarcane to defendant No.2 vide loan application dated 18.11.2013. Accordingly, the applicant Bank sanctioned demand loan of Rs.18,00,000/- to defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 stood guarantor for the repayment of loan availed by defendant No.1.

¶24

Sanap ( OA No. 763/2023 ) 3 of 7

¶25

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank. Defendant No. 2 with the consent of defendant No.3 has created second charge on the properties Gat Nos. 1456 to 1464, 1466, 1468A, 1469 to 1472, 1474 to 1479, 1483 to 1493, 70 and 72 situated at Kavathe Mahankal, District Sangli by executing mortgage deed dated 24.01.2011, in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶26

Thereafter, considering request of defendant Nos.1 and 2, the applicant Bank restructured the said Demand Loan of Rs.18,00,000/- to Term Loan of Rs.10,95,606/- on 31.07.2015 and defendant No.1 executed supplemental Term Loan Agreement and Acknowledgment of Debts/Securities Letter dated 31.07.2015 in favour of the applicant Bank and thereby confirmed the balance outstanding in loan account.

¶27

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Hence, on 31.05.2018, the applicant Bank has classified the account of defendant No.1 as Non-Performing Asset in accordance with guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Thereafter, on 02.07.2018, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to

¶28

Sanap ( OA No. 763/2023 ) 4 of 7

¶29

defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Despite service of Notice, defendant Nos.1 and 2 failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank.

¶30

Hence, this application is filed.

¶31

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against the defendants as per Order dated 22.07.2025 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶32

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Shivajee Bhardwaj, Branch Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW1-1 to AW1-25 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶33

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

¶34

Since the defendants failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of the applicant Bank. Therefore, application deserves to be allowed against defendant Nos.1 and 2. No relief is claimed against defendant No.3, therefore, no order against defendant No.3.

¶35

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @13.45% per annum. However, considering the facts of the case, I

¶36

Sanap ( OA No. 763/2023 ) 5 of 7

¶37

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

¶38

Hence, I pass the following order.

¶39

O R D E R

¶40

A} Original Application No. 763/2023 is allowed with costs against defendant Nos.1 and 2.

¶41

B} Defendant Nos.1 and 2 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.31,19,102/(Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Nineteen Thousand One Hundred Two only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 27.07.2018 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶42

C} The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage of properties Gat Nos. 1456 to 1464, 1466, 1468A, 1469 to 1472, 1474 to 1479, 1483 to 1493, 70 and 72 situated at Kavathe Mahankal, Taluka Kavathe Mahankal, District Sangli, more particularly described in the Para No. 5.11 of the Original Application, subject to first charge of defendant No.3.

¶43

D} The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged property to recover its dues, subject to first charge of

¶44

Sanap ( OA No. 763/2023 ) 6 of 7

¶45

defendant No.3.

¶46

E} No order in respect of defendant No.3 as no relief has been claimed against defendant No.3.

¶47

F} Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶48

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

¶49

Sd/( Dilip G. Murumkar ) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 23.12.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶50

Sanap ( OA No. 763/2023 ) 7 of 7

Bank of India v. Sahebrao Rupsing Rathod

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Sahebrao Rupsing Rathod

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 Maharashtra versus Sanjay

Federal Bank versus Kallappa Hajare

Federal Bank versus Shivaji

Union Bank of India versus Madhav

Hdfc Bank versus Mr. Aakash Sanjay Agarwal Prop. M/S Shree Sai Buildtek

Bank of India versus Bapu Malekar