Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Vikas Ratan Valvi

DRT11 Jul 2025OA/956/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRB allowed the Bank's application for recovery of housing loan dues totaling Rs. 34,44,830.30 plus future simple interest at 7.95% p.a. The order directed the defendants to pay jointly and severally and declared mortgaged property as security for repayment.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 34,44,830.30 plus 7.95% per annum simple interest; mortgaged property declared as security; plaintiff entitled to sell property; Recovery Certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus Vikas Ratan Valvi — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 12.12.2024 Registered on: 31.12.2024 Decided on: 11.07.2025 Duration: Y M D - 06 29

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Shri Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding officer)

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs.34,44,830.30 PS.

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.956/2024

¶5

Union Bank of India ,

¶6

a body corporate constituted under the Banking

¶7

Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of undertakings) Act, 1970 having it's Registered Office at 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 & having branches amongst the other places at Nandurbar through it’s POA, Mr. Gautam Kumar Tripathi (Branch Manager), Age: 35 yrs., Occu: Service, R/o. Nandurbar Dist.

Nandurbar.

… Applicant

Versus

[DAK] (OA No.956/2024) Page 1 of 8

¶12

1.Mr. Vikas Ratan Valvi Age: Major, Occu.: Service, R/o: At Nimboni, Post Shrawani, Tq. Navapur, Dist. Nandurbar 425416

¶13

2.Mrs. Surekha Laxman Patil Age: Major, Occu.: Service, R/o: At Post Patalipada Aashramshala, Tq. Nandurbar, Dist. Nandurbar 425412

¶14

APPEARANCES

¶15

Defendants

¶16

For the Applicant Mr. K. D. Pande - Advocate For Defendants Exparte

¶17

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 11^th July, 2025)

¶18

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs. 34,44,830.30 PS (Rs. Thirty Four

¶19

[DAK] (OA No.956/2024) Page 2 of 8

¶20

Lacs Forty Four thousand Eight Hundred Thirty & Thirty Ps Only) together with interest 7.95% per annum with monthly rests compoundable upon Housing loan from 01.12.2024 till the full realization of the entire dues and costs from the defendants.

¶21

Brief facts of the application are as under :

¶22

That, the Defendant No. 1 had approached to the Applicant Bank and requested to sanction a Housing Loan facility. Upon considering the representation/request and need of the defendant, the Applicant Bank sanctioned Housing Loan of Rs. 33,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 21.07.2022 on certain terms & conditions. The agreed rate of interest was @ 7.95 % per annum with monthly rests. The defendants also agreed to pay an additional interest by way of liquidated damages @ 2% p.a. in case of default in repayment.

¶23

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants executed loan documents in favour of the applicant bank namely sanction letter, letter of continuity, demand promissory note for Rs.33 lacs, letter of undertaking, housing loan agreement and registered simple

¶24

[DAK] (OA No.956/2024) Page 3 of 8

¶25

mortgage deed bearing daybook no.4403 dated 29.07.2022, vide list of documents Exh.5. The defendant no.2 stood as guarantor for defendant no.1 and she executed deed of guarantee dated 29.07.2022 in favour of the applicant bank.

¶26

The applicant bank contended that to secure the Housing loan facility, the defendant no.1 mortgaged his immovable property by executing registered simple mortgage deed bearing daybook no. 4403 dated 29.07.2022 in favour of the applicant bank in respect of following property.

¶27

All that piece & parcel of plot no. 4/B, admeasuring 123.75 Sq. Mtrs out of Survey no. 59/2/1 situated at Saraswati Nagar, Dudhale, Tq. & Dist. Nandurbar which is bounded as under-

¶28

East : Road

¶29

West : Out of Survey No. 59 South : Plot No. 5 A

¶30

North : Plot No. 4 A

¶31

The applicant bank 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

¶32

[DAK] (OA No.956/2024) Page 4 of 8

¶33

within a year 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 nonperforming asset on 14.04.2024. Therefore on 30.11.2024, the applicant Bank issued legal notice to the defendants through their Advocate. Despite service of Notice, the defendants failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶34

The defendants failed to appear in the matter though they were duly served, hence the defendants proceeded exparte as per Order dated 11.07.2025.

¶35

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of Evidence (Exhibit-4) ofGautam Kumar Tripathi, Branch Manager of the applicant Bank and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Exh. A-1 to A-15, along with list of documents Exh. 5 which corroborates the case of the

¶36

[DAK] (OA No.956/2024) Page 5 of 8

¶37

applicant Bank.

¶38

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

¶39

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 reliefs as claimed.

¶40

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @ 7.95% per annum with monthly rests compoundable from 01.12.2024 till the full realization of the entire dues and costs from the defendants. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @ 7.95% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶41

Hence, I pass the following order.

¶42

ORDER

¶43

(A) Original Application No.956/2024 is allowed with costs.

¶44

(B) Defendants are ordered and directed to pay jointly and severally to the applicant the

¶45

[DAK] (OA No.956/2024) Page 6 of 8

¶46

aggregate sum of Rs. 34,44,830.30 PS (Rs. Thirty Four Lacs Forty Four thousand Eight Hundred Thirty & Thirty Ps Only) alongwith future interest @ 7.95% per annum (simple) from 12.12.2024 till full payment/realization of the amount.

¶47

¶48

All that piece & parcel of plot no. 4/B, admeasuring 123.75 Sq. Mtrs out of Survey no. 59/2/1 situated at Saraswati Nagar, Dudhale, Tq. & Dist. Nandurbar which is bounded as underEast : Road West : Out of Survey No. 59 South : Plot No. 5 A North : Plot No. 4 A

¶49

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

¶50

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶51

[DAK] (OA No.956/2024) Page 7 of 8

¶52

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

¶53

(G) File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

¶54

Place : Aurangabad. Date : 11.07.2025.

¶55

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

¶56

[DAK] (OA No.956/2024) Page 8 of 8

Union Bank of India v. Vikas Ratan Valvi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Vikas Ratan Valvi

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

Union Bank of India versus Sonal Umesh Patil

Sunil Jagannath Dusing versus Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Union Bank of India ( Andhra Bank ) versus Mosin Munir Shaikh

Union Bank of India versus Avinash Ramkisan Vidhate

Union Bank of India versus Shaikh Akeel Shaikh Nadar Pinjari

Asha Balasaheb Ralebhat versus Canara Bank