Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Nasrin Nashir Shaikh

DRT29 Oct 2025OA/833/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of outstanding dues. The court decreed the principal amount plus future interest at 11% p.a. and granted the bank's right to sell mortgaged property. Defendants were absent.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 34,87,896/- with future interest at 11% p.a.; Right to sell mortgaged property; Issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Nasrin Nashir Shaikh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 21.03.2024 Registered on: 21.10.2024 Decided on: 29.10.2025 Duration: Y M D 01 07 08

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 833/2024

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 34,87,896/-

¶4

Bank of Maharashtra ,

¶5

A Body Corporate constituted under the provisions of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act V of 1970, Having its Head Office at 1501, Lokmangal, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-and branch amongst other places at Osmanabad Branch, Taluka and District Osmanabad, Through its Branch Manager, Mr. Mahendra Kumar s/o. Shri. Rajbahadur, Age: 45 years, Occ.: Service as Branch Manager with Bank of Maharashtra, Osmanabad Branch, Taluka and District Osmanabad, Maharashtra.

… Applicant

(OA No.833/2024)

Page 1 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Versus

1. Mrs. Nasrin Nashir Shaikh, Age: Major, Occ.: Business, Proprietor M/s. Sadiya Beauty Parlor, Training Center & Ladies Wear R/o.: Kala Maruti Chowk, Arab Galli, Osmanabad-413501.

¶12

And

¶13

Galli No. 12, Khaja Nagar, Osmanabad-413501.

¶14

2. Mr. Moinoddin Khaja Pathan,

¶15

Age: Major, Occ.: Business, R/o.: House No. 11/131, Fatima Manzil, Krini Mala, Rasulpur, Osmanabad-413501. …Defendants

¶16

APPEARANCES

¶17

For the Applicant Mr. P.N. Kapadia -Advocate For Defendants Ex-parte

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Delivered on 29.10.2025

¶20

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 34,87,896/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lacs, Eighty Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Ninety Six only), along with future interest from the date of filing of the Original

(OA No.833/2024)

Page 2 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Application, i.e., 21.03.2024, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶25

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶26

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendant No. 1 had approached and requested the Applicant Bank to sanction cash credit facility. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the Defendant, the Applicant Bank sanctioned cash credit facility of Rs. 25,00,000/- vide, sanction letter dated 26.11.2018 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest was @ 11% p.a. with monthly rests. The Defendant also agreed to pay additional interest by way of liquidated damages in the event of any default in repayment.

¶27

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendant executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letter, demand promissory note, mortgage deed bearing daybook No. 5413/2018 dated

(OA No.833/2024)

Page 3 of 8

[AMBADAS]

28.11.2018 and hypothecation agreement etc. Additionally

¶32

defendant No. 2 stood as guarantor for defendant no. 1 and

¶33

executed deed of guarantee on 03.12.2018 in favour of the

¶34

Applicant Bank.

¶35

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendant executed mortgage deed

¶36

bearing daybook No. 5413/2018 dated 28.11.2018 in respect of

¶37

following property:

¶38

All that piece and parcel of property bearing GP House No. 1157, Plot No. 1157, Plot No. 117, Gut No. 250 adm. 150 square meters, situated at Sanja, Taluka and District Osmanabad, belonging to defendant No. 1, which is bounded as under:

¶39

East: Plot No. 116, West: 12 meter wide road, South: Plot No. 96 North: 9 meter wide road.

¶40

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

(OA No.833/2024)

Page 4 of 8

[AMBADAS]

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 30.06.2021. Therefore on 04.01.2024 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.

¶45

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were served through court commissioner. Hence, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 27.03.2025.

¶46

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Mahendra Kumar s/o Shri. Rajbahadur, Branch Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Exh. A-1 to A-11 along

(OA No.833/2024)

Page 5 of 8

[AMBADAS]

with list of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶51

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

¶52

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.

¶53

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

¶54

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @13% p.a. from the date of filing i.e. 21.03.2024 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 @11% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

(OA No.833/2024)

Page 6 of 8

[AMBADAS]

ORDER

(A) Original Application No. 833/2024 is allowed with costs.

¶60

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of 34,87,896/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lacs, Eighty Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Ninety Six only), along with future interest @ 11 % per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the O.A. i.e. 21.03.2024 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶61

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the mortgage of the following immovable property vide mortgage deed bearing daybook No. 5413/2018 dated 28.11.2018 at Exh. A-6 in the list of documents Exh. 5

¶62

All that piece and parcel of property bearing GP House No. 1157, Plot No. 117, Gut No. 250 adm. 150 square meters, situated at Sanja, Taluka and District Osmanabad, belonging to defendant No. 1, which is bounded as under:

¶63

East: Plot No. 116, West: 12 meter wide road,

(OA No.833/2024)

Page 7 of 8

[AMBADAS]

South: Plot No. 96 North: 9 meter wide road.

¶68

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

¶69

immovable property and hypothecated articles/goods etc., to recover its dues.

¶70

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶71

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

¶72

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶73

Sd/Pronounced in open court. (Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Place: Aurangabad Presiding Officer Date:.29.10.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶74

(OA No.833/2024)

¶75

Page 8 of 8

¶76

[AMBADAS]

Bank of Maharashtra v. Nasrin Nashir Shaikh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Nasrin Nashir Shaikh

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

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Anil Bhausaheb Kadam

Sumit Pavankumar Jain versus State Bank of India

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/s Zorco Organic Manures

Union Bank of India versus Ravindra Ratanlal Morwal

State Bank of India versus Laxman Mahadev Ulekar

Bank of Maharashtra versus Nasrin Nashir Shaikh