Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Onkar Ramdas Rathod (Deceased)

DRT7 May 2026OA/101/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad allowed the original application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of dues. The Tribunal reduced the future interest rate from 12.15% to 7% per annum simple interest and directed the sale of mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Claim allowed; defendants to pay Rs. 26,45,417/- with future interest at 7% p.a. simple; mortgagee entitled to sell properties.

Union Bank of India versus Onkar Ramdas Rathod (Deceased) — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 04.02.2022 Registered on: 29.04.2022 Decided on: 07.05.2026 Duration: Y M D 04 03 03

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 101/2022

¶4

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 26,45,417/-

¶5

Union Bank of India, A Body Corporate and

¶6

constituted under the Banking companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act v, 1970 having its Local Head office at 239, Backbay

¶7

Reclamation Bombay 400021 and one of its Branch at Jalna, Taluka and District Jalna and acting through its power of Attorney Holder and one of its chief manager Shri. Yogesh Sitaram Girhe, age; 35 years, Occupation: Service as Manager, Union Bank of India, Jalna Branch, Jalna and having authority to file the application which includes the authority to sign and verify the application.

… Applicant

(OA No.101/2022)

Page 1 of 9

[AMBADAS]

Versus

1. Onkar Ramdas Rathod (Deceased) Through his legal heir,

¶14

1-1) Smt. Sinjadrabai Onkar Rathod,

¶15

Age: 49 Years, Occ.: Agriculture At Village Navha (Warud), Taluka and District Jalna.

¶16

1-2) Mr. Shivaji Onkar Rathod,

¶17

Age: Major, Occ.: Agriculture At Village Navha (Warud), Taluka and District Jalna.

¶18

1-3) Mr. Sachin Onkar Rathod,

¶19

Age: Major, Occ.: Agriculture At Village Navha (Warud), Taluka and District Jalna.

¶20

2. Subhadrabai Onkar Rathod

¶21

Age: 49 Years, Occ.: Agriculture At Village Navha (Warud), Taluka and District Jalna.

¶22

3. Ramu Manik Shinde

¶23

Age: 52 Years, Occ.: Agriculture Village Varud, Taluka and District Jalna.

¶24

4. Shivaji Onkar Rathod

¶25

Age: 60 Years, Occ.: Agriculture Near Mandir Area, Village Navha (Warud), Taluka and District Jalna.

…Defendants

(OA No.101/2022)

Page 2 of 9

[AMBADAS]

APPEARANCES

For the Applicant Mr. K.D. Pande -Advocate For Defendants Ex-parte

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

Delivered on 07.05.2026

¶34

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the

¶35

recovery of a sum of Rs. 26,45,417/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs, Forty Five Thousand, Four Hundred and Seventeen only), along with future interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 04.02.2022, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶36

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶37

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendant No. 1 & 2 approached and requested the Applicant Bank seeking financial assistance. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the Defendants, the Applicant Bank sanctioned a Term loan facility of Rs. 14,73,000/- & Crop Loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 14.03.2016 on certain terms and conditions.

(OA No.101/2022)

Page 3 of 9

[AMBADAS]

The agreed rate of interest for the aforesaid loan was @12.15%

¶42

p.a. with yearly rests. The Defendants also agreed to pay additional interest @2% by way of liquidated damages in the event of any default in repayment.

¶43

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendants executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letter, registered mortgage deed bearing document no. JNG-1-1323 dated 15.03.2016, letter of undertaking, demand promissory note, letter of continuity & hypothecation agreement. Additionally defendant No. 3 & 4 stood as guarantors for defendant No. 1 & 2 and executed deed of guarantee on 17.03.2016 in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶44

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendant No. 1 & 2 created first charge over their immovable property by executing registered mortgage

¶45

deed bearing document no. JNG-1-1323 dated 15.03.2016 in

(OA No.101/2022)

Page 4 of 9

[AMBADAS]

favour of the Applicant Bank. The mortgage was created in

¶50

respect of the following properties-

¶51

i) All that piece and parcel of property land admeasuring 1 Hector 89 R, situated at Gut No. 34 at village Navha, Taluka and District Jalna owned by defendant No. 1.

¶52

ii) All that piece and parcel of property land admeasuring 1 Hector 48 R, situated at Gut No. 34 at village Navha, Taluka and District Jalna owned by defendant No. 2.

¶53

iii) All that piece and parcel of property land admeasuring 0 Hector 20 R, situated at Gut No. 35 at village Navha, Taluka and District Jalna owned by defendant No. 2.

¶54

The applicant bank further states that in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant No. 1 & 2 also executed hypothecation agreement thereby hypothecating Tractor i.e. SHAKTI MT 270 VIRAT 4WB purchased by defendant no. 1 out of

¶55

Bank Finance has been registered with the Regional Transport Office, Jalna bearing Registration No. MH-21-AN-1859.

¶56

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

(OA No.101/2022)

Page 5 of 9

[AMBADAS]

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 31.03.2021. Therefore, on 08.06.2021 the applicant bank issued legal notice to the defendants through their advocate. Despite service of Notices, the defendants failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶61

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were duly served. Hence, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 27.04.2026.

¶62

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Yogesh Sitaram Girhe, Branch Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Annexure A-1 to A-17 along with list of

(OA No.101/2022)

Page 6 of 9

[AMBADAS]

documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶67

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

¶68

Since the defendants failed to appear 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.

¶69

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

¶70

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @12.15% p. a. on term loan from the date of filing i.e. 25.02.2022 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.

(OA No.101/2022)

Page 7 of 9

[AMBADAS]

ORDER

(A) Original Application No. 101/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶76

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 26,45,417/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs, Forty Five Thousand, Four Hundred and Seventeen only), along with future interest @ 7% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 04.02.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶77

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the mortgage of the following immovable properties bearing document no. JNG-1-1323 vide registered mortgage deed dated 15.03.2016 at Annexure A-11 in list of documents Exh. 5.

¶78

i) All that piece and parcel of property land admeasuring 1 Hector 89 R, situated at Gut No. 34 at village Navha, Taluka and District Jalna owned by defendant No. 1.

¶79

ii) All that piece and parcel of property land admeasuring 1 Hector 48 R, situated at Gut No. 34 at

(OA No.101/2022)

Page 8 of 9

[AMBADAS]

village Navha, Taluka and District Jalna owned by defendant No. 2.

¶84

iii) All that piece and parcel of property land admeasuring 0 Hector 20 R, situated at Gut No. 35 at village Navha, Taluka and District Jalna owned by defendant No. 2.

¶85

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

¶86

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶87

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

¶88

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶89

Sd/-

¶90

Pronounced in open court. (Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Place: Aurangabad Presiding Officer Date:.07.05.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶91

(OA No.101/2022)

¶92

Page 9 of 9

¶93

[AMBADAS]

Union Bank of India v. Onkar Ramdas Rathod (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Onkar Ramdas Rathod (Deceased)

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Santosh Kisan Bhor

Bank of Maharashtra versus Jivanrao Vishwanath Gore

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Anas Bashir Shaikh

Canara Bank versus Sudhir Bhaurao Ghuge

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Rameshwar Baburao Gaikwad

Canara Bank versus M/s. Cik Parametrics Pvt. Ltd.