Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Dnyaneshwar Atmaram Solunke

DRT19 Nov 2025OA/916/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's claim for recovery of Rs. 28,99,372/- principal along with future interest at 7% p.a. against the defendant borrower who failed to appear and contest the application.

What did the court decide?

Adjudicated sum of Rs. 28,99,372/- along with future interest @ 7% p.a. (simple) from 26.10.2024; confirmation of mortgage on specific flat; entitlement to sell mortgaged property; issue of Recovery C

Bank of Baroda versus Dnyaneshwar Atmaram Solunke — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 26.10.2024 Registered on: 13.12.2024 Decided on: 19.11.2025 Duration: Y M D 01 00 23

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 916/2024

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 28,99,372/-

¶4

Bank of Baroda ,

¶5

Bank of Baroda with effect from 1^st April 2019 in

¶6

terms Gazatte of India No. GSR No. 2E dated 2^nd

¶7

January 2019 issued by ministry of finance Govt. India. Body corporate constituted under the Banking

¶8

Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking)

¶9

Act, 1970, having its Head Office at Mandvi, Baroda

¶10

Gujarat & having one of its Branch at Sahakar Nagar, Dist. Aurangabad, through its authorized officer Santan Kumar, Age 40 years, Occ.: Service as a chief Manager, Sahakar Nagar, Bank of Baroda At

¶11

Aurangabad R/o. Aurangabad.

… Applicant

(OA No.916/2024)

Page 1 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Versus

Dnyaneshwar Atmaram Solunke, Age: Major, Occ.: Agril, R/o.: Row House No. 01, Plot No. 57, Sony Nagar Parmar Valle, Beed By Pass, Aurangabad. AND Flat no. A14, 3^rd Floor, Radhakrushna Residency, Plot No. 54, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61 Gut No. 77, Nr Ram Mandir, Satara Gaon, Aurangabad 431001.

¶18

…Defendant

¶19

APPEARANCES

¶20

For the Applicant Mr. A. L. Muley -Advocate For Defendant Ex-parte

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Delivered on 19.11..2025

¶23

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 28,99,372/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs, Ninety Nine Thousand, Three Hundred and Seventy Two only), along with future interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 26.10.2024, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendant.

(OA No.916/2024)

Page 2 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶28

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendant had approached and requested the Applicant Bank for Housing loan facility. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the Defendant, the Applicant Bank sanctioned Housing loan facility of Rs. 25,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 11.02.2021 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for the aforesaid loan facility was @7.20% p.a. with yearly rests. The Defendant also agreed to pay additional interest of @2% by way of liquidated damages in the event of any default in repayment.

¶29

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendant executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letter, hypothecation agreement, demand promissory notes, letter of undertaking, registered sale deed vide No. ARB6-2390-2021 dated 28.04.2021 etc., in favour of the Applicant Bank

(OA No.916/2024)

Page 3 of 8

[AMBADAS]

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility sanctioned, the Defendant created charge over his immovable property by executing registered sale deed vide No. ARB6-2390-2021 dated 28.04.2021 in favour of the applicant bank. The mortgage was created in respect of the following property –

¶34

All that piece and parcel of Flat No. A14, 3^rd Floor, built up area 68.081 sq. mtrs., situated at Gut No. 77, Plot No. 54,55,56,57,60,61, Radhakrushna Residency, Nr. Ram Mandir Satara Gaon Aurangabad, standing in the name of defendant No. 1, which is bounded as under:

¶35

East: Flat No. B13, West: Flat No. A13, South: Falt No A15, North: Open space.

¶36

The applicant bank contended that the defendant has failed to keep his promise and commitments agreed by him with regard to due repayment of the loan amount. The defendant 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 defendant to pay with the agreed rate

(OA No.916/2024)

Page 4 of 8

[AMBADAS]

of interest thereon, but the defendant failed and neglected to pay the same. The loan account of the defendant became irregular and classified as NPA on 24.09.2020. Therefore on 17.10.2024 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.

¶41

The defendant failed to appear in matter though he was served through paper publication. Hence, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 16.04.2025.

¶42

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Sanatan kumar, Chief Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Exh. A-1 to A-12 along with list of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶43

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

(OA No.916/2024)

Page 5 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Since the defendant 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.

¶48

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

¶49

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @7.20% p.a. from the date of filing i.e. 26.10.2024 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 @ 7% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶50

ORDER

¶51

(A) Original Application No. 916/2024 is allowed with costs.

¶52

(B) The defendant shall pay to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 28,99,372/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs, Ninety Nine

(OA No.916/2024)

Page 6 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Thousand, Three Hundred and Seventy Two only), along with future interest @ 7% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 26.10.2024 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶57

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the mortgage of the following immovable property vide documents at Exh. A-7 to A-10 in the list of documents at Exh. 5.

¶58

¶59

East: Flat No. B13, West: Flat No. A13, South: Flat No. A15, North: Open Space.

¶60

(D)

¶61

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged immovable property, to recover its dues.

(OA No.916/2024)

Page 7 of 8

[AMBADAS]

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶66

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

¶67

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶68

Sd/-

¶69

Pronounced in open court. (Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Place: Aurangabad Presiding Officer Date:. 19.11.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶70

(OA No.916/2024)

¶71

Page 8 of 8

¶72

[AMBADAS]

Bank of Baroda v. Dnyaneshwar Atmaram Solunke

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Dnyaneshwar Atmaram Solunke

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 versus Mr. Dattatray Laxman Nalage

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Vimal Tatyasaheb Pendbhaje

Union Bank of India versus Ravindra Pitambar Patil

Bayadabai Pandit Bhole versus Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S. Akshara Designer Sarees

Bank of Baroda versus Sanjay Sahebrao Dhone