Allowed

State Bank of India v. Shaikh Salauddin

DRT15 Jun 2026OA/1112/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application filed by State Bank of India to recover outstanding dues from the defendants who defaulted on a term loan. The tribunal reduced the claimed penal interest and fixed future interest at 9% per annum, issuing a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 26,88,170/- plus future interest at 9% per annum and issuance of Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus Shaikh Salauddin — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on .. 10.05.2018 Registered on .. 18.07.2023 Decided on .. 15.06.2026 Duration .. Y—M—D 08--01--05

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 1112/2023.

¶3

State Bank of India,

¶4

A Banking Company constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, having its Corporate Office at State Bank Bhavan, Nariman Point, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai 400 021 and its branch at – Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Second Floor, Wardhaman, Seven Loves Chowk, Shankarsheth Road, Pune 411 037.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 Mr. Salauddin Mehboob Shaikh,

¶8

2 Mrs. Dilshad Salauddin Shaikh, Both R/at – Flat No. 203, 2^nd Floor, Karishma Apartment, CTS No. 714, S. No. 11/8/2, 2B/6 & 2B/3/9, Kondhwa Khurd, Pune 411 048. … Defendants

¶9

Appearances :-

¶10

For Applicant Advocate Amruta Pendse. For Defendants Ex parte.

¶11

Sanap ( OA No. 1112/2023 ) 1 of 5

¶12

Total Claim Amount – Rs.28,22,924/-

¶13

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 15^th June, 2026)

¶14

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.28,22,924/- together with future interest @10.25% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶15

Brief facts of the application are as under :-

¶16

As per the loan application dated 07.11.2014 of defendant Nos.1 and 2, the applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed the Term loan facility of Rs.23,00,000/- to the defendants for purchase of flat vide Arrangement Letter dated 18.11.2014.

¶17

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants have executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank. The defendants have entered into memorandum of deposit of creation of charge for house loan and deposited the copy of agreement to sell dated 27.10.2014.

¶18

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed

¶19

Sanap ( OA No. 1112/2023 ) 2 of 5

¶20

to regularize the accounts. Therefore, on 30.03.2016, the applicant Bank has classified the account of the defendants as Non-Performing Asset in accordance with guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Thereafter, on 15.01.2018, 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.

¶21

Hence, this application is filed.

¶22

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against the defendants as per Order dated 26.02.2026 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶23

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Mahendra Shewale, Chief Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW1-1 to AW1-14 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶24

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

¶25

Since the defendants failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of the

¶26

Sanap ( OA No. 1112/2023 ) 3 of 5

¶27

applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for reliefs as claimed.

¶28

The applicant Bank has claimed Penal Interest of Rs.34,754/- plus Legal charges of Rs.1,00,000/- total of Rs.1,34,754/-, which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.28,22,924/- is reduced to Rs.26,88,170/-.

¶29

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @10.25% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple) from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendants, 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.1112/2023 is allowed with costs. B} Defendant Nos.1 and 2 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.26,88,170/(Rupees Twenty Six Lakh Eighty Eight Thousand One Hundred Seventy only) along with future interest @9%

¶33

Sanap ( OA No. 1112/2023 ) 4 of 5

¶34

per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 10.05.2018 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶35

C} Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶36

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

¶37

Sd/( Dilip G. Murumkar ) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 15.06.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶38

Sanap ( OA No. 1112/2023 ) 5 of 5

State Bank of India v. Shaikh Salauddin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Shaikh Salauddin

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

Canara Bank versus M/S R K Poultries Pvt. Ltd.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Deepak Kadam

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Sanjay Trading Company Prop Sanjay Sopan Ursal

State Bank of India versus M/S. Bhagyalaxmi Industries Prop Mr. Rameshwar Kundalik Mane

Bank of India versus Arun Rajgonda Patil

Bank of India versus Babasaheb Dongare