Allowed

Axis Bank v. Mr. Bharat Atmaram Solunke

DRT13 May 2026OA/119/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Bank's application for recovery of outstanding dues totaling Rs. 31,24,820/-. The Bank proved execution of loan documents despite respondents' defenses citing pandemic and illness. The Tribunal allowed future interest at 7% per annum and authorized sale of mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 31,24,820/- with future interest at 7% p.a. from filing date. Authorization to sell mortgaged property and issue recovery certificate.

Axis Bank versus Mr. Bharat Atmaram Solunke — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 03.02.2025 Registered on: 19.02.2025 Decided on: 13.05.2026 Duration: Y M D 01 03 10

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 119/2025

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 31,24,820/-

¶4

AXIS Bank Ltd.

¶5

A Body Corporate, constituted and established under the Companies Act 1956 and having its Registered Office at “Trishul” 3^rd Floor, Opp. Samartheshwsar Temple, Law Garden, Ellis Bridge, Ahmedabad, AND

¶6

Its, Branch Office at “Shrivasta”, 65, Sarang Housing Society, New Gajanan Maharaj Mandir, Garkheda, Aurangabad. Through its Authorized Representative Mr. Nitin Bhausaheb Warule, Age: 32 Years, Occ.: Service having his address for communication at c/o. Axis Bank Ltd., “Shrivastava”, 65, Sarang Housing Society, Near Gajanan Maharaj Mandir, Garkheda, Aurangabad.

… Applicant

(OA No.119/2025)

Page 1 of 11

[AMBADAS]

Versus

1. Mr. Bharat Atmaram Solunke Age: 44 Years, Occ.: Agri., R/o.: Row House No. A-1, Plot No. 57, Beed Bypass Road, Satara Parisar, Garkheda, Aurangabad 431009.

¶13

2. Mr. Vinod Atmaram Solunke Age: 41Years, Occ.: Agri., R/o.: Near Ganpati Mandir, Pragati Colony, Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad 431109.

¶14

3. Mr. Atmaram Rajaram Solunke Age: 70 Years, Occ.: Agri., R/o.: Row House No. A-1, Plot No. 57, Beed Bypass Road, Satara Parisar, Garkheda, Aurangabad 431009.

¶15

…Defendants

¶16

APPEARANCES For the Applicant For Defendants

¶17

Mr. M. D. Narwadkar -Advocate Mr. A. M. Salok - Advocate

¶18

JUDGMENT Delivered on 13.05.2026

¶19

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the

¶20

recovery of a sum of Rs. 31,24,820/- (Rupees Thirty One Lacs,

(OA No.119/2025)

Page 2 of 11

[AMBADAS]

Twenty Four Thousand, Eight Hundred and Twenty only), along with further interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 03.02.2025, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶25

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶26

The Applicant Bank submits that Defendant No. 1 approached the Applicant Bank with a request for financial assistance. Upon due consideration of the said request and the financial requirements of Defendants, the Applicant Bank was pleased to sanction overdraft facility of Rs. 25,00,000/- overdraft facility under Kisan Samarth Scheme and Rs. 50,000/- for working capital vide sanction letter dated 07.10.2022 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for the aforesaid loan facilities was @12% & @13.5% p.a. with monthly rests. The Defendants also agreed to pay additional interest @ 2% by way of liquidated damages in the event of any default in repayment.

(OA No.119/2025)

Page 3 of 11

[AMBADAS]

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendants executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letter, hypothecation agreement, mortgage deed dated 09.11.2022, letter of arrangement etc. Additionally defendant No. 3 stood as guarantor for defendant No. 1 & 2 and executed deed of guarantee in favour of the Applicant Bank

¶31

The Applicant Bank further contends that in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendants executed mortgage deed dated 09.11.2022, The mortgage was created in respect of the following property in favour of the applicant bank.

¶32

All that piece and parcel of properties bearing Gut No. 110, admeasuring 2.77 H, at village Navha Tal. Jalna, Dist. Jalna, which is bounded as under:

¶33

East: Bhivsan Kathor & Vidarbh Boundry, West: Hari Vitthal Solunke, South: Bhika Rangnath Bhutekar, North: Rukmini Shivaji Chunchekar & Road.

(OA No.119/2025)

Page 4 of 11

[AMBADAS]

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 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 31.10.2024. Therefore, on 09.12.2024 the applicant bank issued recall Notice to the defendants. The defendants failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶38

The defendants appeared in the matter and filed their written statement vide Exh. 9, inter alia, denying all the contentions raised by the applicant bank. The defendants respectfully submit that no single cause of action has arisen for filing the present

(OA No.119/2025)

Page 5 of 11

[AMBADAS]

Original Application against them. Due to the severe impact of the COVID-19 pandemic during 2020–2021, the financial condition of all business sectors, including the agricultural sector, deteriorated drastically, causing heavy losses to the defendants. Defendant No. 1 is the owner of ancestral agricultural land bearing Gut No. 110 admeasuring 2H.77R situated at Village Nhava, Taluka Jalna, District Jalna. During this difficult period, Defendant No. 1 suffered from serious medical ailments including UTI and old CVA, resulting in repeated hospitalization and heavy medical expenses. Further, the wife of Defendant No. 1 was also diagnosed with severe gastritis and COPD and underwent treatment at United Sigma Hospital from 19/09/2022 to 04/10/2022 and again from 24/05/2023 to 03/04/2024, causing additional financial burden upon the family. Because of these unforeseen medical emergencies along with the pandemic situation, the defendants faced drastic economic hardship which ultimately resulted in default in repayment.

(OA No.119/2025)

Page 6 of 11

[AMBADAS]

The defendants further submit that they have maintained banking relations with the applicant bank since 2014 and had regularly repaid the loan installments without any deliberate lapse or negligence. The loan facilities were availed for agricultural development and allied purposes, and repayments were continuously made towards the loan account, copies of which are annexed as Exhibit R-2. However, despite the genuine intention of the defendants to repay the outstanding dues and even proposing settlement through OTS, the applicant bank allegedly refused to consider the same and instead sought to impose excessive interest and additional ROI charges. The defendants contend that the applicant bank has not approached the Hon’ble DRT with clean hands and has violated the norms, rules, and regulations framed by the Government of India and RBI while charging interest, penal charges, and future interest. The defendants further state that the bank failed to comply with the actual terms and conditions of the sanction letter and has caused mental harassment and agony to the defendants. It is also submitted that the mortgaged property possesses a market value

(OA No.119/2025)

Page 7 of 11

[AMBADAS]

far higher than the outstanding loan amount, and despite this, the applicant bank is allegedly attempting to seize the property with malafide intention, and therefore the entire recovery application deserves to be dismissed with costs.

¶51

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Nitin S/o. Bhausaheb Warule, Power of Attorney Holder of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Exh. A-1 to A-8 along with list of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶52

I have heard arguments of the learned Advocate for the applicant Bank and the learned counsel for defendants and gone through the material on record thoroughly and carefully My finding along with reasons are as under:-

¶53

The above documentary evidence of the applicant bank clearly shows that the defendants have availed loan from the applicant bank and executed necessary bank documents in token thereof as referred above. Mere denial of the defendants is not sufficient to

(OA No.119/2025)

Page 8 of 11

[AMBADAS]

rebut the documentary as well as evidence affidavit of the bank. The defendants have failed to prove how the application is false and how the bank has caused harassment and mental agony. This OA has been filed when the defendants committed default in paying of loan amount and the loan account was declared NPA and hence, the applicant bank has cause of action to file the present OA. Further in Written Statement, defendants have admitted the loan and executed of loan documents but they could not pay the amount due to COVID-19 and illness of wife of defendant no. 1, Therefore, from the above documentary evidence and arguments of the applicant, I come to the conclusion that the applicant bank has proved its case against the defendants. 10. The applicant Bank has claimed charge over immovable property of the borrowers which is mortgaged in favour of the applicant bank.

¶58

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest at contractual rates from the date of filing i.e. 03.02.2025 of this application till realization of the claim amount. However, considering the facts of

(OA No.119/2025)

Page 9 of 11

[AMBADAS]

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

¶63

interest.

¶64

ORDER

¶65

(A) Original Application No. 119/2025 is allowed with costs.

¶66

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 31,24,820/- (Rupees Thirty One Lacs, Twenty Four Thousand, Eight Hundred and Twenty only), along with future interest @ 7% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 03.02.2025 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶67

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the mortgage of the following immovable property vide document at Exhibit A-4 in list of documents Exh. 5.

¶68

All that piece and parcel of properties bearing Gut No. 110, admeasuring 2.77 H, at village Navha Tal. Jalna, Dist. Jalna, which is bounded as under:

(OA No.119/2025)

Page 10 of 11

[AMBADAS]

East: Bhivsan Kathor & Vidarbh Boundry, West: Hari Vitthal Solunke, South: Bhika Rangnath Bhutekar, North: Rukmini Shivaji Chunchekar & Road.

¶73

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

¶74

immovable properties and hypothecated articles/goods

¶75

etc., to recover its dues.

¶76

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶77

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

¶78

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶79

Sd/-

¶80

Pronounced in open court. (Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Place: Aurangabad Presiding Officer Date:.13.05.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶81

(OA No.119/2025)

¶82

Page 11 of 11

¶83

[AMBADAS]

Axis Bank v. Mr. Bharat Atmaram Solunke

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Axis Bank v. Mr. Bharat Atmaram Solunke

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

Maharastra Gramin Bank versus M/S Capgi Industries Private Limited

The Ahmednagar District Central Cooperative Bank Limited versus Bank of India

Axis Bank versus M/s. Aashirwad Trading Company

State Bank of India versus Mr. Mohammad Jakir Mohammad Shabbir

Bank of India versus Mr. Narayan Baburao Jivrak

Idbi Bank versus Ravindrakumar Renukadas Joshi