Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Vitthal Shankar Mane

DRT11 Aug 2026OA/121/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Union Bank of India to recover a loan amount of Rs. 22,32,765/- along with future interest from borrowers defaulted on a home loan. The defendants were absent, and the bank was granted a recovery certificate secured by mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Ordered defendants to pay Rs. 22,32,765/- jointly and severally with 7% per annum simple interest; authorized sale of mortgaged property; issued recovery certificate.

Union Bank of India versus Vitthal Shankar Mane — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 29.01.2025 Registered on: 19.02.2025 Decided on: 11.08.2026 Duration: Y M D 01 06 12

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 121/2025

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 22,32,765/-

¶4

Union Bank of India,

¶5

A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act v, 1970 Having its Head office at 239, Backbay Reclamation Bombay 400021 and one of its Brach at Assets Recovery Branch, Union Bank of India, Plot No. 3, First Floor, Sahakar Bank Colony, Shahnoorwadi, Darga Road, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad) through its POA Holder Mr. Abhaykumar Dattatray Baviskar, Age: 38 years, Occupation: Chief Manager, Asset Recovery Branch Union Bank of India, Aurangabad and having authority to file the application which includes the authority to sign and verify the application.

… Applicant

(OA No.121/2025)

Page 1 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Versus

1. Vitthal Shankar Mane, Age: 49 Years, Occ.: Business Santawadi Road, Kashti, Shrigonda, Ahilyanagar (Ahmednagar).

¶12

And Mane Niwas, Plot No. 23, Gut No. 802/803/23, Indraprastha Park, Shrigonda Road, Kashti, Taluka Shrigonda, District Ahilyanagar (Ahmednagar) 414 701.

¶13

2. Suvarna Vitthal Mane, Age: 41 Years, Occ.: House Wife, Santawadi Road, Kashti, Shrigonda, Ahilyanagar (Ahmednagar).

¶14

And Mane Niwas, Plot No. 23, Gut No. 802/803/23, Indraprastha Park, Shrigonda Road, Kashti, Taluka Shrigonda, …Defendants District Ahilyanagar (Ahmednagar) 414 701.

¶15

APPEARANCES

¶16

For the Applicant Mrs. Rajashree R. Yewale - Advocate For Defendants Ex-parte

(OA No.121/2025)

Page 2 of 8

[AMBADAS]

JUDGMENT

Delivered on 11.08.2026

¶22

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the

¶23

recovery of a sum of Rs. 22,32,765/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs, Thirty Two Thousand, Seven Hundred and Sixty Five only), along with future interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 29.01.2025, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶24

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶25

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendant No. 1 & 2 approached and requested the Applicant Bank for financial assistance. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the Defendants, the Applicant Bank Sanctioned Term Loan (Home Loan) of Rs. 20,62,000/- vide sanction letter dated 11.02.2021 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for the aforesaid loan was @7% p.a. with monthly rests. The Defendants

(OA No.121/2025)

Page 3 of 8

[AMBADAS]

also agreed to pay additional interest @2% by way of liquidated

¶30

damages in the event of any default in repayment.

¶31

¶32

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendants executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letter, letter of continuity, letter of undertaking, hypothecation agreement, demand promissory note, registered sale deed No. SGD-150-2017 dated 12.01.2017 etc., in favour of the applicant bank.

¶33

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendants created first charge over their immovable property under registered sale deed No. SGD150-2017 dated 12.01.2017 in favour of the Applicant Bank. The mortgage was created in respect of the following property-

¶34

All that piece and parcel of Plot No. 23 admeasuring 163.80 Sq. Mtrs., (including ground floor 81.90 sq. mtrs and first floor 81.90 Sq. mtrs), Indraprastha Park, Gut No. 802/803, Shrigonda road, Kashti, Taluka Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar, which is bounded as under:

(OA No.121/2025)

Page 4 of 8

[AMBADAS]

East: 12 Mtr. Internal Road, South: Gat No. 802/803/24 West: Gat No. 801 Partly, North: Amenity Space.

¶39

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 04.09.2023. Therefore, on 19.04.2024 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.

(OA No.121/2025)

Page 5 of 8

[AMBADAS]

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were served through summons. Hence, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 06.01.2026.

¶44

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Abhaykumar Dattatray Baviskar, Chief Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Annexure A-1 to A-13 along with list of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶45

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

¶46

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.

¶47

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

(OA No.121/2025)

Page 6 of 8

[AMBADAS]

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @7% p. a. plus 2% penal interest from the date of filing i.e. 29.01.2025 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.

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(A) Original Application No. 121/2025 is allowed with costs.

¶54

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 22,32,765/- (Rupees Twenty

¶55

Two Lacs, Thirty Two Thousand, Seven Hundred and Sixty

¶56

Five only), along with future interest @ 7% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the O.A. i.e. 29.01.2025 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶57

¶58

mortgage of the following immovable properties vide

(OA No.121/2025)

Page 7 of 8

[AMBADAS]

document at Annexure A-9 in the list of documents Exh.

¶63

¶64

¶65

East: 12 Mtr. Internal Road, South: Gat No. 802/803/24 West: Gat No. 801 Partly, North: Amenity Space.

¶66

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

¶67

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶68

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

¶69

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶70

Sd/-

¶71

Pronounced in open court. Place: Aurangabad Date:.11.08.2026

¶72

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

¶73

(OA No.121/2025)

¶74

Page 8 of 8

¶75

[AMBADAS]

Union Bank of India v. Vitthal Shankar Mane

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Vitthal Shankar Mane

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

Idbi Bank versus Anil Nivrutti Nalage

Axis Bank versus Janata Pashukhadya House

Idbi Bank versus Suyog S/O Shamlal Kayasth

Axis Bank versus Babasaheb Bhimrao Dabhade

Bank of Maharashtra versus Dnyaneshwar

Bank of Maharashtra versus Ms Akshay Trading Company