Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/S. Prakash Agro Products Prop. Mr. Samadhan Prakash Sawant

DRT1 Jul 2025OA/913/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of loan dues totaling Rs. 15,45,578/- plus future interest. Since defendants appeared ex-parte, the court confirmed the debt, modified the future interest rate to 9% per annum, and ordered recovery including sale of mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs.15,45,578/- plus future interest at 9% p.a.; property to be sold to recover dues; Recovery Certificate issued.

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. Prakash Agro… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on .. 05.07.2019 Registered on .. 14.10.2022 Decided on .. 01.07.2025 Duration .. Y—M—D 05--11--26

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 913/2022.

¶3

Bank of Maharashtra,

¶4

A Banking Company Incorporated under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act V of 1970, having its registered office at ―Lokmangal‖, 1501, Shivajinagar, Pune – 5 and branch office at Gaudgaon, Taluka Barshi, District Solapur 413 406.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 M/s. Prakash Agro Products, Prop. Mr. Samadhan Prakash Sawant, Age 32 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/at : Sangamner, Taluka Barshi, District Solapur 413 406.

¶8

2 Mr. Prakash Chandrabhan Sawant, Age - Adult, Occ. Agriculture, R/at : Sangamner, Taluka Barshi, District Solapur 413 406.

¶9

3 Mr. Pandurang Kundalik Sawant, Age 32 years, Occ. Agriculture,

¶10

Sanap ( OA No. 913/2022 ) 1 of 5

¶11

R/at : Sangamner, Taluka Barshi, District Solapur 413 406. … Defendants

¶12

:- Appearances For Applicant Advocate Ashok Tamboli. For Defendants Ex parte.

¶13

Total Claim Amount – Rs.15,45,578/-

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

(Delivered on 01^st July, 2025)

¶16

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.15,45,578/- together with future interest @14.25% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶17

Brief facts of the application are as under :-

¶18

As per the loan application dated 24.09.2013 of defendant No.1, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Cash Credit facility of Rs.12,00,000/- to defendant No.1. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 stood guarantors for the repayment of loan availed by defendant No.1.

¶19

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants executed necessary loan and security documents along with deed of mortgage of all those pieces and parcel of land situate being lying at village Tuljapur, District Osmanabad admeasuring 159.04 sq.

¶20

Sanap ( OA No. 913/2022 ) 2 of 5

¶21

mtrs. and construction thereon and bearing CTS/Survey No. 2434, in favour of the applicant Bank. The defendants have also executed Balance Confirmation Letter on 21.09.2016 and thereby confirmed the outstanding balance in the loan account.

¶22

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Therefore, on 23.04.2018, 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.

¶23

Hence, this application is filed.

¶24

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against the defendants as per Order dated 28.02.2025 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶25

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Avinash Kamble, Branch Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW1-1 to AW1-10 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶26

Sanap ( OA No. 913/2022 ) 3 of 5

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @14.25% 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.

¶30

Hence, I pass the following order.

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

A} Original Application No. 913/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶33

B} Defendant Nos.1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.15,45,578/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Eight only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 05.07.2019 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶34

C} The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the

¶35

Sanap ( OA No. 913/2022 ) 4 of 5

¶36

valid and subsisting mortgage of all those pieces and parcel of land situate being lying at village Tuljapur, District Osmanabad admeasuring 159.04 sq. mtrs. and construction thereon and bearing CTS/Survey No. 2434, more particularly described in the Schedule of property in Para No. 5.4 of the Original Application.

¶37

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

¶38

E} Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶39

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

¶40

Sd/( Dilip G. Murumkar ) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 01.07.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶41

Sanap ( OA No. 913/2022 ) 5 of 5

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/S. Prakash Agro Products Prop. Mr. Samadhan Prakash Sawant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/S. Prakash Agro Products Prop. Mr. Samadhan Prakash Sawant

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

Idbi Bank versus Avinash Kalhoke

Uco Bank versus Rekha Narute

Bank of Maharashtra versus Samadhan

Mohan Shashikant Bhosale Prop of Shrimant Foods and Mrs Archana Bhosale versus Indian Bank

Bank of India versus Mr Shitanshu Mistry

Federal Bank versus Sujata Patil