Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Ganesh S/o Dhondiram Maujal

DRT25 Nov 2025OA/92/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed bank application for recovery of loan dues of Rs. 25.78 lakhs against defaulting borrowers. Court fixed future interest at 10% p.a. instead of contractual rate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay principal sum of Rs. 25,78,364 and interest at 10% p.a. from 14.12.2022; Recovery Certificate issued; power to sell hypothecated asset exercised.

Icici Bank Limited versus Ganesh S/o Dhondiram… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 14.12.2022 Registered on: 04.08.2023 Decided on: 25.11.2025 Duration: Y M D 02 11 11

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD

¶3

(Before Shri Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.92/2023

¶4

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 25,78,364/-

¶5

ICICI Bank Ltd.

¶6

A Registered Company, Having its Registered Office at ICICI Bank Tower, Near Chakli Circle, Old Padra Road, Vadodara, Gujarat-390007 And having one of its Branch Office at ICICI Bank Ltd, Raghuvir Complex, Opp. District and Sessions Court, Aurangabad. Through: it’s

¶7

… Applicant

¶8

Power Of Attorney Holder Shri. Girish S/o.

(OA No.92-2023)

Page 1 of 9

[Ambadas]

Shrikrishnarao Naik, Age: 47 Years, Occ:

¶13

Service, R/o: C/o. ICICI Bank Ltd, Raghuvir Complex, Opp. District and Sessions Court, Aurangabad.

¶14

Versus

¶15

Ganesh S/o Dhondiram Maujal,

¶16

… Defendant's

¶17

Age: 36 Years, Occ. : Agri/Business,

¶18

R/o. At Avinash Colony, Waluj,

¶19

Gangapur, Aurangabad- 431109.

¶20

Mob No: 9637347305.

¶21

Also,

¶22

R/o. Bharat Nagar, Ramrai Road,

¶23

Waluj, Aurangabad- 431133.

¶24

Kavita Ganesh Maujal,

¶25

Age: 34 Years, Occ. : Housewife,

(OA No.92-2023)

Page 2 of 9

[Ambadas]

R/o. Bharat Nagar, Tq. Gangapur,

¶30

Waluj, Aurangabad- 431133.

¶31

Mob No: 9637347305.

¶32

APPEARANCES

¶33

For the Applicant Mr. Umesh N. Shete - Advocate For Defendants Ex-parte

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

Delivered on (25.11.2025)

¶36

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for

¶37

recovery of the sum of Rs. 25,78,364 (Rs. Twenty Five Lakhs, Seventy Eight Thousand, Three Hundred and Sixty Four Only) together with interest @12.67% on Credit Loan facility from 19.05.2022 till the full realization of the entire dues and costs from the Defendants.

¶38

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶39

That the Defendants approached the Applicant Bank and

(OA No.92-2023)

Page 3 of 9

[Ambadas]

requested for the sanction of a Credit Loan Facility. Upon considering the Defendant’s representation, request and financial needs, the Applicant Bank sanctioned the Credit loan Facility of Rs.18,71,222/- (Rs. Eighteen Lakhs, Seventy One Thousand, Two Hundred and Twenty Two Only) for Purchase of Vehicle Tata Ultra 1518 vide sanction letter dated 10.09.2020 and Term Loan of Rs.03,33,026/- (Rs. Three Lakhs, Thirty Three Thousand, and Twenty Six Only) for subject to the execution of loan agreement and other necessary documents on dated 10.09.2020 executed by Defendants on certain terms & conditions.

¶44

The agreed rate of Fixed interest for the Credit loan facility was @12.67% p.a. and Term Loan was @09.25% p.a. with monthly rests.

¶45

In order to secure the aforesaid Credit Loan facility, the Defendants executed loan documents in favour of the applicant bank namely sanction letter, demand promissory note, request letter, hypothecation agreement, letter of undertaking etc.

(OA No.92-2023)

Page 4 of 9

[Ambadas]

The applicant bank contended that to secure the Credit Loan facility, the Defendants have executed Unattested Deed of Hypothecation dated 26.02.2019 and Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 26.02.2019 of the following property/hypothecation in favour of the applicant bank:

¶50

Description of Hypothecated Assets:-

¶51

Tata Ultra 1518 registered with the Registering Authority

¶52

With Registration bearing No. MH-20-EL-1053 an

¶53

Endorsement of Hypothecation in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶54

The applicant Bank further contended that the Defendants have failed to keep their promises 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

(OA No.92-2023)

Page 5 of 9

[Ambadas]

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 25.01.2021. Therefore, the applicant Bank issued legal notice to the Defendants through their Advocate on 25.01.2022. Despite service of Notice, the Defendants failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶59

Despite Service through publication, the defendants neither appeared nor filed WS within the Statutory Period. Hence, they were hereby proceeded ex-parte vide Order dated 03.10.2025.

¶60

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Mr. Girish S/o Shrikrishnarao Naik, Officer of the applicant bank and has produced on record the copies of loan transaction documents as per Exh. AW-1/02 to AW-1/16 alongwith List of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank. The applicant bank has also filed original loan documents as Exh. AW-1/2 to AW-1/14 along-with Affidavit

(OA No.92-2023)

Page 6 of 9

[Ambadas]

Exh.14 of Girish S/o Shrikrishnarao Naik.

¶65

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

¶66

Since the Defendants failed to filed written statement and did not 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.

¶67

The Applicant Bank has claimed future interest at @12.67%, p.a. with monthly rests on loan from 19.05.2022 till the full realization of the entire dues and costs from the Defendants. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that awarding future interest at @10% per annum (simple) on outstanding amount, it would be just and reasonable.

¶68

Hence, I pass the following order.

¶69

ORDER (A) Original Application No. 92/2023 is allowed with costs.

¶70

(B) The Defendants shall pay Jointly and Severally to the

(OA No.92-2023)

Page 7 of 9

[Ambadas]

Applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 25,78,364 (Rs. Twenty Five Lakhs, Seventy Eight Thousand, Three Hundred and Sixty Four Only) along-with future interest at @10% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 14.12.2022, till full payment/ realization of the said amount.

¶75

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by Hypothecation Agreement in favour of the Applicant Bank vide document Exh.AW-1/05, Exh.AW-1/06 and Exh.AW-1/10 along-with affidavit Exh.14.

¶76

Description of Hypothecation :-

¶77

Tata Ultra 1518 registered with the Registering Authority With Registration bearing No. MH-20-EL1053 an Endorsement of Hypothecation in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶78

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

¶79

Vehicles/ articles/goods etc., to recover its dues.

(OA No.92-2023)

Page 8 of 9

[Ambadas]

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶84

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

¶85

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶86

Sd/-

¶87

Place : Aurangabad Date : 25.11.2025

¶88

(Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶89

(OA No.92-2023)

¶90

Page 9 of 9

¶91

[Ambadas]

Icici Bank Limited v. Ganesh S/o Dhondiram Maujal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Ganesh S/o Dhondiram Maujal

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 Maharashtra versus M/S Bramhi Print and Pack

Union Bank of India versus M/S Vatsala Electricals

Icici Bank Limited versus Krishna Kailash Gawande

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S Raj Distributor

Union Bank of India versus M/S Adityashree Construction

Bank of Maharashtra versus Yogesh Vishwasrao Pophale