Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Neeta Gholve

DRT12 Sept 2025OA/817/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an ex-parte application by Union Bank of India for recovery of loan dues totaling approximately Rs. 25.89 lakhs. The court ordered repayment with future interest at 9% p.a. and authorized the sale of mortgaged property for recovery.

What did the court decide?

Order allowing recovery of principal dues with future interest at 9% p.a. and authorizing sale of mortgaged property.

Union Bank of India versus Neeta Gholve — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on .. 07.10.2019 Registered on .. 21.06.2022 Decided on .. 12.09.2025 Duration .. Y—M—D 05--11--05

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 817/2022.

¶3

Union Bank of India,

¶4

A Banking Company constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its Central Office at Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 and Branch Office at – Katewadi (Kanheri), Post Bhavaninagar, Taluka Indapur, District Pune.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 Smt. Neeta Hirachand Gholve, Age Adult, Occ. Agriculture, Residing At and Post Nimbodi, Taluka Indapur, District Pune.

¶8

2 Shri Sharad Yuvraj Gholve, Age Adult, Occ. Agriculture, Residing At and Post Nimbodi, Taluka Indapur, District Pune.

¶9

… Defendants

¶10

Sanap ( OA No. 817/2022 ) 1 of 6

¶11

Appearances :- For Applicant For Defendants

¶12

Advocate R.B. Ganbote. Ex parte.

¶13

Total Claim Amount – Rs.25,89,003/-

¶14

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 12^th September, 2025)

¶15

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.25,89,003/- together with future interest @11.35% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶16

Brief facts of the application are as under :-

¶17

As per the loan application of defendant No.1, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Term loan facility of Rs.9,00,000/- to defendant No.1 for grape plantation on 21.02.2008.

¶18

Thereafter, again the defendants approached the applicant Bank for grant of short term loan for growing grapes. Accordingly, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Term loan facility of Rs.4,00,000/- to defendant No.1 vide Sanction Letter dated 27.09.2013. Defendant No.2 stood guarantor for the repayment of loan availed by defendant No.1.

¶19

Sanap ( OA No. 817/2022 ) 2 of 6

¶20

Thereafter, again defendant No.1 approached the applicant Bank requesting term loan. Accordingly, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Term loan facility of Rs.50,000/- to defendant No.1 vide Sanction Letter dated 12.07.2014.

¶21

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants have executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank. Defendant No.1 has also executed E-Karar (Declarative mortgage) in respect of all that piece and parcel of Gat No. 67 admeasuring 1H 80R at village Nimbodi, Taluka Indapur, District Pune, in favour of the applicant Bank. The defendants have also executed balance confirmation letters in favour of the applicant Bank from time to time.

¶22

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Hence, the applicant Bank has classified the account of the defendants as Non Performing Asset in accordance with guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Therefore, on 23.09.2019, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendants. Despite service of Notice, the defendants failed and

¶23

Sanap ( OA No. 817/2022 ) 3 of 6

¶24

neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank.

¶25

Hence, this application is filed.

¶26

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against the defendants as per Order dated 02.05.2025 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶27

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Shri Dhananjay Nilkanth Ingale, Manager and Principal Officer of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1 to AW-25 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶28

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

¶29

Since the defendants failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of the applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for reliefs as claimed.

¶30

The applicant Bank has claimed relief in respect of hypothecated assets. However, there is no detailed description with respect to the hypothecated assets,

¶31

Sanap ( OA No. 817/2022 ) 4 of 6

¶32

therefore, the relief in terms of hypothecated assets cannot be granted.

¶33

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @11.35% per annum. 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.

¶34

Hence, I pass the following order.

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

A} Original Application No. 817/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶37

B} Defendant No.1 shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.19,03,883/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Three Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Three only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 07.10.2019 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶38

C} Defendant Nos.1 and 2 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.6,85,120/(Rupees Six Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand One Hundred Twenty only) along with future interest

¶39

Sanap ( OA No. 817/2022 ) 5 of 6

¶40

@9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 07.10.2019 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶41

D} The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage in respect of all that piece and parcel of Gat No. 67 admeasuring 1H 80R at village Nimbodi, Taluka Indapur, District Pune, more particularly described in the Para No. 5.7 and 5.14 of the Original Application.

¶42

E} The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged property to recover its dues.

¶43

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

¶44

Place : Pune Date : 12.09.2025

¶45

Sd/( Dilip G. Murumkar ) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶46

Sanap ( OA No. 817/2022 ) 6 of 6

Union Bank of India v. Neeta Gholve

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Neeta Gholve

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus Maruti Kare

Bank of India versus Bhanudas Malekar

State Bank of India versus Kaushalya

Bank of India versus Bhaskar Bangar

Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank versus Mr Shirish Alias Sidramappa Patil

Union Bank of India versus Dinesh Yashwant Kulkarni