Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Anil

DRT9 Feb 2026OA/1317/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte recovery application, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's claim for Rs. 52,65,212 along with future interest at 9% per annum against the primary borrower, despite the bank claiming relief only against him while other borrowers and guarantors remained liable.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 52,65,213 with future interest at 9% per annum; issue of Recovery Certificate; entitlement to sell mortgaged property.

Union Bank of India versus Anil — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on .. 17.09.2022 Registered on .. 17.10.2023 Decided on .. 09.02.2026 Duration .. Y—M—D 03--04--22

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 1317/2023.

¶3

Union Bank of India,

¶4

A body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980, having its head office at 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 and Branch Office at – Pandharpur, dAmodar Complex, Station Road, Taluka Pandharpur, District Solapur 413 304.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 Mr. Anil Dnyanoba Gajare, Age Adult, Occ. Agri. & Business, R/at – Village Shelve, Taluka Pandharpur, District Solapur 413 304.

¶8

2 Mr. Prakash Dnyanoba Gajare, Age Adult, Occ. Agri. & Business, R/at – Village Shelve, Taluka Pandharpur, District Solapur 413 304.

¶9

3 Mr. Dnyanoba Laxman Gajare, Age Adult, Occ. Agri. & Business,

¶10

Sanap ( OA No. 1317/2023 ) 1 of 6

¶11

R/at – Village Shelve, Taluka Pandharpur, District Solapur 413 304.

¶12

4 Mr. Tukaram Nana Gajare, Age Adult, Occ. Agri. & Business, R/at – Village Shelve, Taluka Pandharpur, District Solapur 413 304. … Defendants

¶13

Appearances :- For Applicant Adv Bhakti Rokade i/b Srinivas Y. For Defendants Ex parte.

¶14

Total Claim Amount – Rs.52,65,212=60

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

(Delivered on 09^th February, 2026)

¶17

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.52,65,212=60, by rounding Rs.52,65,213/- together with future interest @11.50% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendant No.1.

¶18

Brief facts of the application are as under :-

¶19

As per the loan application of defendant Nos.1 and 2, the applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed the Term Loan facility of Rs.35,00,000/- to defendant Nos.1 and 2 for the purpose of establishment of Grape orchard and Pomegranate Garden vide Sanction Letter dated 01.03.2028. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 stood guarantors for the repayment of loan availed by defendant Nos.1 and 2.

¶20

Sanap ( OA No. 1317/2023 ) 2 of 6

¶21

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants have executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have also executed deed of hypothecation and declaration as required by Section 5(1) of the Maharashtra Provision of Facilities for Agricultural Credit by Banks Act in favour of the applicant Bank in respect of all that piece and parcel of the property bearing Survey No. 315 admeasuring about 2H 4R; Survey No. 316 admeasuring about 1H 9R and Survey No. 319 admeasuring about 19R situated at village Shelve, Taluka Pandharpur, District Solapur.

¶22

The defendants have also executed Demand Promissory Note on 04.01.2021 in favour of the applicant Bank and thereby confirmed the balance outstanding in loan account.

¶23

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Hence, on 30.09.2021, 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 10.09.2022, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the

¶24

Sanap ( OA No. 1317/2023 ) 3 of 6

¶25

defendants. Despite service of Notice, the defendants failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank.

¶26

Hence, this application is filed.

¶27

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against the defendants as per Order dated 18.07.2025 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶28

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Adesh Dungdung, Branch Manager and Principal Officer of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW1-1 to AW1-17 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that according to the applicant Bank itself, defendant Nos.1 and 2 are borrowers and mortgagors. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are

¶32

Sanap ( OA No. 1317/2023 ) 4 of 6

¶33

the guarantors to the loan facility granted to defendant Nos.1 and 2. However, in the prayer clause of the Original Application as well as in the claim affidavit, the applicant Bank has prayed to issue recovery certificate against defendant No.1 only in favour of the applicant Bank. No reliefs are claimed against defendant No.2, borrower and mortgagor and defendant Nos.3 and 4, the guarantors to the loan facility, therefore, no order against them. Thus, the applicant Bank is entitled for the reliefs as claimed against defendant No.1.

¶34

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @11.50% per annum. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶35

Hence, I pass the following order.

¶36

O R D E R

¶37

A} Original Application No. 1317/2023 is allowed with costs against defendant No.1.

¶38

B} Defendant No.1 shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.52,65,213/- (Rupees Fifty Two Lakh Sixty Five Thousand Two Hundred Thirteen only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of

¶39

Sanap ( OA No. 1317/2023 ) 5 of 6

¶40

the Original Application i.e. 17.09.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶41

C} The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting declaration and mortgage in respect of all that piece and parcel of the property bearing Survey No. 315 admeasuring about 2H 4R; Survey No. 316 admeasuring about 1H 9R and Survey No. 319 admeasuring about 19R situated at village Shelve, Taluka Pandharpur, District Solapur, more particularly described in the Para No. 5.6 of the Original Application.

¶42

D} The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged property to the extent of defendant No. 1 to recover its dues.

¶43

E} No order against defendant Nos. 2 to 4. F} Issue Recovery Certificate. G} The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant and defendants.

¶44

Sd/( Dilip G. Murumkar ) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 09.02.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶45

Sanap ( OA No. 1317/2023 ) 6 of 6

Union Bank of India v. Anil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Anil

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus Govind

Hdfc Bank versus M/S. Shri Ramdev Jewwllers Prop. Mr. Shantilal Hansaji Pirohit

Union Bank of India versus Bhaskar

Bank of India versus Suraj Panditrao Patil Prop M/S Shubhavanti Printeres

Federal Bank versus Chetna Sagvekar

Union Bank of India versus Sidharam