Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Ajinath Kedar

DRT11 Feb 2025OA/820/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Bank of Maharashtra for recovery of dues. The court directed the four respondents to pay principal amounts along with future interest at 9% per annum, secured by mortgaged flats.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay principal sums with future interest @ 9% per annum; mortgaged properties declared as security; bank entitled to sell properties; recovery certificate issued.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Ajinath Kedar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on : 05.12.2019 Registered on : 23.06.2022 Decided on : 11.02.2025 Duration : Y M D 05 02 06

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 820/2022.

¶3

Bank of Maharashtra, A Banking Company Incorporated under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its registered office at “Lokmangal”, 1501, Shivajinagar, Pune – 5 and branch office .. Applicant at Kadus, Pune.

¶4

Versus

¶5

1 Mr. Ajinath Nanba Kedar, Age Adult, Occ. : Service, R/at – Post Kadus, Near Bank of Maharashtra, Taluka Khed, District Pune 412 404.

¶6

2 Mrs. Vijaya Ajinath Kedar, Age Adult, Occ. : Housewife, R/at – Post Kadus, Rajguru Nagar, Taluka Khed, District Pune 412 404.

(OA No. 820/2022)

Page 1 of 7

Sanap

3 Mr. Kisan Damodar Dhamale, Age Adult, Occ. : Business, R/at – Post Kadus, Near Bank of Maharashtra, Taluka Khed, District Pune 412 404.

¶11

4 Mr. Nandakumar Dinkar Sukale, Age Adult, Occ. : Business, R/at – Post Kadus, Near Bank of Maharashtra, Taluka Khed, District Pune 412 404. .. Defendants

¶12

APPEARANCES

¶13

For Applicant Advocate V.S. Tokekar. For Defendants Ex parte.

¶14

Total Claim Amount – Rs.54,68,432/-

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

(Delivered on 11^th February, 2025)

¶17

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.54,68,432/- together with future interest @10.25 and 11.50% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶18

Brief facts of the application are as under :

¶19

As per the loan applications dated 02.03.2013 of defendant Nos.1 and 2, the applicant Bank sanctioned the following loan

(OA No. 820/2022)

Page 2 of 7

Sanap

facilities to defendant Nos.1 and 2 for purchase of house.

¶24

Name of the facility	Amount	Date of sanction
1. Housing Loan	Rs.17,00,000/-	04.03.2013
2. Housing Loan	Rs.17,00,000/-	04.03.2013

¶25

Defendant No.3 stood guarantor for the repayment of first housing loan availed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 and defendant No.4 stood guarantor for the repayment of second housing loan availed by defendant Nos.1 and 2.

¶26

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants executed necessary loan and security documents along with deeds of mortgage on 29.06.2013 of (1) Flat No.3 on stilt floor admeasuring 20.28 sq. mtrs. situated in building Balaji Corner, Gat No. 468/2/I and 468/2/H, village Medankarwadi, Taluka Khed, District Pune and (2) Flat No.8 on second floor admeasuring 615 sq. ft. situated in building Janak Apartment, Gat No. 468/2/D and 468/2/E, village Medankarwadi, Taluka Khed, District Pune, in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶27

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the

(OA No. 820/2022)

Page 3 of 7

Sanap

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 05.06.2019, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendants. Despite service of Notice, the defendants failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank.

¶32

Hence, this application is filed.

¶33

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 03.02.2025 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶34

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Vilas Pundlik Gwale, Branch Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1-1 to AW-1-19 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶35

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

¶36

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

(OA No. 820/2022)

Page 4 of 7

Sanap

reliefs as claimed.

The applicant Bank has claimed relief in respect of hypothecated assets. However, there is no detailed description with respect to the hypothecated assets, therefore, the relief in terms of hypothecated assets cannot be granted.

¶42

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @10.25 and 11.50% 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.

¶43

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(A) Original Application No. 820/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶46

(B) Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.28,12,865/(Rs. Twenty Eight Lakhs Twelve Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Five only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 05.12.2019 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

(OA No. 820/2022)

Page 5 of 7

Sanap

(C) Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.26,55,567/- (Rs. Twenty Six Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Seven only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 05.12.2019 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶51

(D) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage of (1) Flat No.3 on stilt floor admeasuring 20.28 sq. mtrs. situated in building Balaji Corner, Gat No. 468/2/I and 468/2/H, village Medankarwadi, Taluka Khed, District Pune and (2) Flat No.8 on second floor admeasuring 615 sq. ft. situated in building Janak Apartment, Gat No. 468/2/D and 468/2/E, village Medankarwadi, Taluka Khed, District Pune, more particularly described in the Para No. 5 (d) and (g) of the Original Application.

¶52

(E) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged properties to recover its dues.

(OA No. 820/2022)

Page 6 of 7

Sanap

(F) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶57

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

¶58

Sd/(Dilip G Murumkar) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 11.02.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶59

(OA No. 820/2022)

¶60

Page 7 of 7

¶61

Sanap

Bank of Maharashtra v. Ajinath Kedar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Ajinath Kedar

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 India versus Rajendraprasad Muttilingam Martha

Canara Bank versus Kamlesh Patankar

Hdfc Bank versus Mr. Bapurav Pandurang Chandagude

Uco Bank versus Sadashiv Mantur

Punjab National Bank versus M//S. v T Enterprises Prop. Mr. Vikas Sharadchandra Agrawalrwal

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sachin Bhosale