Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Shashikant Jagannath Patil

DRT15 Sept 2025OA/766/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed Union Bank of India's application for recovery of Rs. 21,12,955.59 plus future interest. The court adjudicated the claim against absent defendants, allowing 9% per annum simple interest on the term loan secured by mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Defendants shall pay Rs. 21,12,955.59 with future interest at 9% per annum from 07.09.2024. Bank entitled to sell mortgaged property and issue Recovery Certificate.

Union Bank of India versus Shashikant Jagannath… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 07.09.2024 Registered on: 24.09.2024 Decided on: 15.09.2025 Duration: Y M D 01 00 08

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 766/2024

¶3

Union Bank of India,

¶4

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 21,12,955.59/-

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

… Applicant

(OA No.766/2024)

Page 1 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Versus

1.Mr. Shashikant Jagannth Patil Age: Major, Occu.: Agriculture R/o.: At Plot No. 34/B, Balaji Nagar Gondur Road Devpur Dhule Dist. Dhule, 411043

¶12

Mr. Satilal Avchit Koli Age: Major, Occu.: Agriculture R/o.: At Post Khede Tq. & Dist. Dhule, 424302

¶13

…Defendants

¶14

APPEARANCES

¶15

For the Applicant For Defendants

¶16

Mr. K. D. Pande -Advocate Ex-parte

¶17

JUDGMENT Delivered on 15.09.2025

¶18

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the

¶19

recovery of a sum of Rs. 21,12,955.59/- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs, Twelve Thousand, Nine Hundred Fifty Five and Fifty Nine Paisa only), along with future interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 07.09.2024, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

(OA No.766/2024)

Page 2 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶24

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendant No. 1 approached and requested the Applicant Bank for a Term loan facility. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the Defendant, the Applicant Bank sanctioned a Term loan facility of Rs. 15,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 20.04.2019 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for the aforesaid loan was @11.75% 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.

¶25

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. 1745 dated 26.03.2019, letter of undertaking, demand promissory note, letter of continuity & hypothecation agreement. Additionally defendant No. 2 stood as guarantor for defendant No. 1 and executed deed of guarantee

(OA No.766/2024)

Page 3 of 8

[AMBADAS]

on 20.04.2019 in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶30

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendant No. 1 created first charge over his immovable property under daybook no. 1745 dated

¶31

26.03.2019 in favour of the Applicant Bank. The mortgage was

¶32

created in respect of the following property-

¶33

All that piece and parcel of Agricultural land admeasuring 59 R out of Gut No. 46/1/2B, situated at Village Sanjori, Tq. & Dist. Dhule., which is bounded as under:

¶34

East: Gut No. 18 West: Remaining portion of Gut No. 46/1/2 South: Gut No. 47 North: Gut No. 20.

¶35

The applicant bank further states that in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant No. 1 also executed hypothecation agreement thereby hypothecating crops, herds, flocks, fish catch, silk worms and cocoons etc.

¶36

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

(OA No.766/2024)

Page 4 of 8

[AMBADAS]

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 30.04.2023. 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.

¶41

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were served through RPAD. Hence, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 30.01.2025.

¶42

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Bhatusingh s/o. Shamsing Thakur, Branch Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original

(OA No.766/2024)

Page 5 of 8

[AMBADAS]

loan transaction documents as Exh. A-1 to A-17 along with list of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶47

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

¶48

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.

¶49

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

¶50

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @11.75 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 interest is granted @ 9% per annum (simple), it would be just

(OA No.766/2024)

Page 6 of 8

[AMBADAS]

and reasonable rate of interest.

¶55

ORDER

¶56

(A) Original Application No. 766/2024 is allowed with

¶57

costs.

¶58

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 21,12,955.59/- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs, Twelve Thousand, Nine Hundred Fifty Five and Fifty Nine 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.

¶59

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the mortgage of the following immovable property bearing daybook no. 1745 vide registered simple mortgage deed dated 26.03.2019 at Exh. A-11 in list of documents Exh. 5.

¶60

All that piece and parcel of Agricultural land admeasuring 59 R out of Gut No. 46/1/2/B, situated at

(OA No.766/2024)

Page 7 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Village Sanjori, Tq. & Dist. Dhule., which is bounded as under:

¶65

East: Gut No. 18 West: Remaining portion of Gut No. 46/1/2 South: Gut No. 47 North: Gut No. 20.

¶66

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged immovable property and hypothecated articles/goods

¶67

etc., to recover its dues.

¶68

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶69

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

¶70

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶71

Sd/-

¶72

Pronounced in open court. Place: Aurangabad Date:.15.09.2025

¶73

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

¶74

(OA No.766/2024)

¶75

Page 8 of 8

¶76

[AMBADAS]

Union Bank of India v. Shashikant Jagannath Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Shashikant Jagannath Patil

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

Bank of India versus Ramrao Dadarao Shelke

Jyoti Yashwantrao Sansare versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Digambar Manikrao Deshmukh

State Bank of India versus M/S Anita Agency

Bharat Alurao Rathod versus Canara Bank

Sunil Chandrabhan Wagh versus Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd.