Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/s Padmavati Enterprises

DRT18 Dec 2025OA/822/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad allowed the bank's ex-parte application for recovery of outstanding dues due to the defendants' default in appearing. The court directed payment of principal, future interest at 8%, and sale of hypothecated assets. This case concerned a cash credit facility dispute.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs. 26,24,572.12/- with 8% interest; sale of hypothecated assets; issuance of recovery certificate.

State Bank of India versus M/s Padmavati Enterprises — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 08.10.2024 Registered on: 15.10.2024 Decided on: 18.12.2025 Duration: Y M D 01 00 19

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 822/2024

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 26,24,572.12/-

¶4

State Bank of India,

¶5

(Erstwhile State Bank of Hyderabad)

¶6

A body corporate constituted under the provisions of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955) having it’s one of Local Head office at Synergy, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai & Branches amongst the other places at Burudgaon Road, Ahmednagar, through its Branch Manager Mr. Pramod Gangadhar Madewar, Age: 42 yrs., Occ.: Service, R/o. Burudgaon Road, Ahmednagar.

¶7

Versus

¶8

… Applicant

¶9

1. M/s. Padmavati Enterprises Through its Proprietor, Mr. Mukesh Balasaheb Kalanga Age: Major, Occ. Agri., R/o. At Shop No. 01, Santa Kaikadi Maharaj Vyapari Sankul, Maliwada, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar414001.

(OA No.822/2024)

Page 1 of 8

[AMBADAS]

2. Mr. Mukesh Balasaheb Kalanga Age: Major, Occ. Agri., R/o. At Shop No. 01, Santa Kaikadi Maharaj Vyapari Sankul, Maliwada, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar 414001.

¶14

…Defendant

¶15

APPEARANCES

¶16

For the Applicant For Defendant

¶17

Mr. K. D. Pande Advocate Ex-parte

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Delivered on 18.12.2025

¶20

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 26,24,572.12/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs, Twenty Four Thousand, Five Hundred Seventy Two and Twelve Paisa only), along with further interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 08.10.2024, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants. Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶21

The applicant bank states that, the Defendant No. 2 being proprietor of defendant No. 1 had approached the Applicant Bank

(OA No.822/2024)

Page 2 of 8

[AMBADAS]

requesting sanction of a Cash Credit Facility. After due consideration, the Bank sanctioned a Cash Credit Facility of ₹5,50,000/- vide sanction Letter dated 03.12.2015, subject to certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for the said facility was @8.75% per annum with monthly rests. Additionally, the Defendants agreed to pay further interest at the rate of 2% per annum by way of liquidated damages in the event of default in repayment.

¶26

Thereafter, Defendants again approached the Applicant Bank for enhancement of the said Cash Credit Facility. Upon considering the request, the Bank enhanced the facility to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/- vide Arrangement Letter dated 22.07.2017. The rate of interest was @8.75% per annum with monthly rests, and the Defendants continued to remain liable to pay additional interest at 2% per annum in case of default.

(OA No.822/2024)

Page 3 of 8

[AMBADAS]

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendants executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank, including the arrangement letter, sanction letter, hypothecation agreement, letters of undertaking etc., in favor of the Applicant Bank.

¶31

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities sanctioned, the Defendants executed hypothecation agreements dated 03.12.2015 & 22.02.2017 thereby hypothecating all kind of stock & book-debts, raw material, receivables and other current assets of the firm, plant & machinery purchased out of bank’s finance.

¶32

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 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

(OA No.822/2024)

Page 4 of 8

[AMBADAS]

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 29.03.2020. Therefore, on 24.09.2024 the applicant bank issued legal notice to the defendants through his advocate. Despite service of Notices, the defendants failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶37

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were served through paper publication. Hence, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 13.06.2025.

¶38

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Mr. Pramod Gangadhar Madewar, Branch Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Exh. A-1 to A-12 as per list of documents Exh. 5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

(OA No.822/2024)

Page 5 of 8

[AMBADAS]

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

¶43

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.

¶44

The applicant Bank has claimed charge over hypothecated property of the borrowers.

¶45

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @8.75% with monthly rests from the date of filing i.e. 08.10.2024 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 @ 8% per annum (simple) on outstanding amount, it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

(OA No.822/2024)

Page 6 of 8

[AMBADAS]

ORDER

(A) Original Application No. 822/2024 is allowed with

¶51

costs.

¶52

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 26,24,572.12/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs, Twenty Four Thousand, Five Hundred Seventy Two and Twelve Paisa only), along with future interest @ 8% per annum (simple), from the date of filing of the O.A. i.e. 08.10.2024 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶53

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the hypothecation of all kind of stock & book-debts, raw material, receivables and other current assets of the firm, plant & machinery purchased out of bank’s finance. Vide hypothecation agreements dated 03.12.2015 & 22.02.2017 at Exh. A-4 and Exh. A-6 in list of documents Exh. 5.

(OA No.822/2024)

Page 7 of 8

[AMBADAS]

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the hypothecated

¶58

stocks / Plant & Machinery /articles/goods etc., to recover its dues.

¶59

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶60

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

¶61

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

Pronounced in open court. (Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Place: Aurangabad Presiding Officer Date:.18.12.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶64

(OA No.822/2024)

¶65

Page 8 of 8

¶66

[AMBADAS]

State Bank of India v. M/s Padmavati Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/s Padmavati Enterprises

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 Baroda versus Narayan Machindra Autade

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Kamalshanti Industries

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Sunil Trading Company

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr. Ramesh Baburao Kaduskar

State Bank of India versus Yogesh Rohidas Mali

Icici Bank Limited versus Ramesh Sampat Bhalerao