Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Rajendra Vishwas Lahare

DRT17 Sept 2025OA/897/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of loan dues. The court enforced the mortgage and hypothecation, allowing sale of properties to recover the debt with future interest at 9% per annum. Defendants were absent.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 32,49,464.71 plus future interest at 9% p.a.; bank entitled to sell mortgaged and hypothecated properties; Recovery Certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus Rajendra Vishwas Lahare — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 16.11.2024 Registered on: 28.11.2024 Decided on: 17.09.2025 Duration: Y M D 00 10 01

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 897/2024

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 32,49,464.71/UNION BANK OF INDIA, (erstwhile Corporation

¶4

Bank, a Body Corporate and constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, 1970, having its Head Office at 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-40021 and amongst other places at Shirdi, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar through its Authorized Officer, Mr. Sandip Annasaheb Dhapatkar (Branch Manager), Age: 38 yrs., Occ.: Service, R/o. Shirdi, Tq. Rahata, … Applicant Dist. Ahmednagar.

(OA No.897/2024)

Page 1 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Versus

1. Mr. Rajendra Vishwas Lahare, Age: Major, Occu.: Agriculture, R/o.: At Post Wakadi, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar 413719.

¶10

2. Mr. Bhaskar Eknath Lahare, Age: Major, Occu.: Agriculture, R/o.: At Post Wakadi, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar 413719

¶11

…Defendants

¶12

APPEARANCES

¶13

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

¶14

For the Applicant For Defendants

¶15

JUDGMENT Delivered on 17.09.2025

¶16

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the

¶17

recovery of a sum of Rs. 32,49,464.71/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lacs, Forty Nine Thousand, Four Hundred Sixty four and Seventy One Paisa only), along with further interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 16.11.2024, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

(OA No.897/2024)

Page 2 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶22

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendant No. 1 had approached and requested the Applicant Bank for a Crop Loan Facility & Term Loan facility. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the Defendants, the Applicant Bank Sanctioned Crop Loan Facility (CCCK) of Rs. 5,90,000/-, SRDE Loan Facility of Rs. 2,00,000 & Agri Term Loan facility of Rs. 7,20,000/- vide sanction intimation letter dated 24.06.2016 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for the aforesaid loan facilities was @ 11% p.a., @11.65% p.a. & @11.65% p.a. respectively 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.

¶23

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendant No. 1 executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letter, demand promissory notes, letters of undertaking, deeds of hypothecation, demand

(OA No.897/2024)

Page 3 of 8

[AMBADAS]

promissory notes, simple mortgage deed bearing day book No. 2453 dated 27.06.2016 etc. Additionally Defendant No. 2 stood

¶28

as guarantor for Defendant No. 1 and executed a deed of

¶29

guarantee on 30.06.2016 in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶30

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendants created first charge over their immovable property under daybook no. 2453 dated 27.06.2016 in favour of the Applicant Bank. The mortgage was created in respect of the following properties-

¶31

All that piece and parcel of Agricultural land admeasuring 01 H 86 R out of Gut No. 218 (P) situated at Village Wakadi, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar which is bounded as under

¶32

East: Gat No. 225 & 219 West: Gat No. 202 & 205 South: Gat No. 217 North: Gat No. 1211 & Canal

¶33

The applicant bank further states that the defendant No. 1 also executed hypothecation agreement, thereby hypothecating crops including standing crops i.e. sugarcane, pomegranate, etc., in favour of the applicant bank

(OA No.897/2024)

Page 4 of 8

[AMBADAS]

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 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 31.03.2019. Therefore, on 19.10.2024 the applicant bank issued legal notice to the defendant through their advocate. Despite service of Notices, the defendant failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶38

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were served through RPAD. Hence, the defendants were proceeded

(OA No.897/2024)

Page 5 of 8

[AMBADAS]

ex-parte as per Order dated 26.08.2025.

¶43

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Sandip Annasaheb Dhapatkar, Branch Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Exh. A-1to A-37 along with list of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶44

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

¶45

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.

¶46

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

¶47

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @ 12.25% p.a. on

(OA No.897/2024)

Page 6 of 8

[AMBADAS]

aforesaid loans from the date of filing i.e. 16.11.2024 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 and reasonable rate of interest.

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(A) Original Application No. 897/2024 is allowed with costs.

¶54

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 32,49,464.71/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lacs, Forty Nine Thousand, Four Hundred Sixty four and Seventy One Paisa only), along with future interest @ 9% per annum (simple) on outstanding amount from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 16.11.2024 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

(OA No.897/2024)

Page 7 of 8

[AMBADAS]

mortgage of the following immovable properties bearing daybook no. 2453 vide mortgage deed dated

¶60

27.06.2016 at Exh A-19 in list of documents Exh. 5.

¶61

All that piece and parcel of Agricultural land admeasuring 01 H 86 R out of Gut No. 218 (P) situated at Village Wakadi, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar which is bounded as under East: Gat No. 225 & 219 West: Gat No. 202 & 205 South: Gat No. 217 North: Gat No. 1211 & Canal

¶62

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged immovable property and hypothecated articles/goods etc., to recover its dues.

¶63

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶64

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

¶65

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶66

Sd/Pronounced in open court. (Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Place: Aurangabad Presiding Officer Date:.17.09.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶67

(OA No.897/2024)

¶68

Page 8 of 8

¶69

[AMBADAS]

Union Bank of India v. Rajendra Vishwas Lahare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Rajendra Vishwas Lahare

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

Union Bank of India ( Andhra Bank ) versus Khan Amjad Maheboob Khan

Rukmini Sahakari Bank Ltd. versus Shree Warana Sahakari Bank Ltd.

Ms Ankit Traders versus Canara Bank

Canara Bank versus Sharad Shankar Jamdade

Bank of Maharashtra versus Bhupesh Lotu Patil

Aashiya Electricals versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited