Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Suman

DRT20 Feb 2026OA/1282/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of a loan granted to defendant No.1 secured by defendants 2 and 3 as guarantors. The court reduced the future interest rate from 11.30% to 9% p.a. and directed the sale of mortgaged property for recovery.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 24,68,873/- with future interest at 9% p.a.; mortgaged property declared realizable; Recovery Certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus Suman — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 14.09.2023 Registered on: 05.10.2023 Decided on: 20.02.2026 Duration: Y M D 02 05 06

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.1282/2023.

¶3

Union Bank of India ,

¶4

A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisitions & Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1980 having its Head office at Union Bank Bhawan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 and having one of its Local Branch Office at–Chikhalthan, House No.150, At & Post Chikhalthan, Taluka Karmala, District Solapur – 413 202.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Mrs. Suman Digambar Patil Age Adult, Occ.:- Agri. & Business,

¶8

2. Mr. Vilas Digambar Patil

¶9

Age Adult, Occ.:- Agri. & Business,

¶10

3. Mr. Sudarshan Manmath Gore

¶11

Age Adult, Occ.:- Agri. & Business, All R/at – Lavhe, Tal. Karmala, District Solapur-413 202. … Defendants

¶12

APPEARANCES

¶13

For the Applicant Mrs. Bhakti Rokade i/b Mr. Srinivas Y - Advocate For the Defendants Ex-parte.

¶14

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.24,68,873/-.

(OA No.1282/2023)

Page 1 of 5

[ANIL]

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 20^th February, 2026)

¶19

The Applicant Bank has filed present application for recovery of Rs.24,68,873/- towards Demand Loan Facility with future interest thereon @11.30% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of filing of suit till repayment/realization of the entire dues from defendants No.1 to 3.

¶20

Brief facts of the application are as under: -

¶21

The Applicant Bank states that Defendant No.1 approached to the Applicant Bank for Demand Loan Facility to the tune of Rs.13,50,000/- for the purpose of Banan Cultivation. Defendant No.2 & 3 agreed to stand as guarantors to the said loan facility.

¶22

The applicant bank considered the request of defendants and sanctioned Rs.13,50,000/- towards Demand Loan facility on 31.03.2008, on certain terms and conditions.

¶23

In order to secure the aforesaid Loan facilities, the defendants have executed loan and security documents on 21.08.2013 in favor of the Applicant Bank, as set out in Para No.5.5 of the Original Application.

¶24

The Applicant Bank states that Defendant No.1 executed declaration as required by Section 5(1) of the Maharashtra Provision of Facilities for Agricultural Credit by Banks Act, 1974 and has created a charge in favour of the applicant bank on the below mentioned land i.e. – All that piece and parcel of property bearing

(OA No.1282/2023)

Page 2 of 5

[ANIL]

S.No. 207 admeasuring about 05H 46R lying and situated at village Lavhe, Taluka Karmala, District Solapur, more particularly mentioned in Para No.5.7 of the Original Application.

¶29

The Applicant Bank contended that the defendants after availing Demand loan facility did not operate the said loan account in a disciplined manner and the operations in the said term loan were irregular and not satisfactory and not as per the terms of sanction. Defendants have committed numerous defaults in repayment of installments stipulated for the loan facilities and thus the defendants were placed in the list of defaulters of the applicant. Owing to failure to comply with the terms of the loan accounts, the account of the defendant treated as NPA on 30.06.2020 as per rules and guidelines framed by Reserve Bank of India.

¶30

Thereafter, the applicant bank issued demand notice to the defendants to regularize the said loan account and repay the loan amount. The applicant also issued notice through its Advocate Srinivas B. Yelery on 17.08.2022 to the defendants informing them to pay remaining outstanding amounts to the applicant bank. In spite of receipt of the said notice, the defendants failed to repay the dues. Hence, this application is filed.

¶31

Defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per order dated 17.07.2025 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

(OA No.1282/2023)

Page 3 of 5

[ANIL]

The Applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Padmaraj Shashikant Jirage, Branch Manager has produced on record the copies/ Original Loan Transaction documents at Sr. Nos.1 to 14, which corroborates the case of the Applicant Bank.

¶36

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

¶37

Since the defendants failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Applicant Bank. Therefore, the Applicant Bank is entitled for the reliefs claimed.

¶38

The Applicant Bank has claimed future interest @11.30% per annum towards Demand Loan Facility. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9.00% p.a. (simple) for the said Loan facility, it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶39

Hence, I pass the following order:-

¶40

ORDER

¶41

(A) Original Application No.1282/2023 is allowed with costs.

¶42

(B) Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay an amount of Rs.24,68,873/- (Rupees TwentyFour Lakhs Sixty-Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy-Three only) towards Demand Loan Facility with future interest @9.00% per annum (Simple) from

(OA No.1282/2023)

Page 4 of 5

[ANIL]

the date of filing of the Original Application i.e.14.09.2023 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order, to the Applicant Bank.

¶47

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by Declaration under Section 5(1) of the property i.e. all that piece and parcel of property bearing S.No.207 admeasuring about 05H 46R lying and situated at village Lavhe, Taluka Karmala, District Solapur, more particularly mentioned in Para No.5.7 of the Original Application

¶48

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

¶49

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶50

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

¶51

Sd/Place : Pune (Dilip G. Murumkar) Date: 20.02.2026 Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶52

(OA No.1282/2023)

¶53

Page 5 of 5

¶54

[ANIL]

Union Bank of India v. Suman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Suman

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

Icici Bank Limited versus Somnath Deshmukh

Encore Assets Reconstruction Company Private Limited versus Vishnu Shingare

Uco Bank versus Vilas Shinde

Union Bank of India versus Haridas

Union Bank of India versus Mallikarjun

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus Pandurang Jagtap