Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Smk Global Security Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

DRT25 Feb 2026OA/15/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Bank of Baroda’s original application for recovery of Rs. 45,19,737/- plus interest after deciding ex-parte against non-appearance of respondents. The court directed sale of mortgaged properties to recover dues.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs. 45,19,737/- plus 11% p.a. simple interest; charge on and sale of mortgaged shops.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Smk Global Security… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 30.08.2021 Registered on: 25.02.2022 Decided on: 25.02.2026 Duration: Y M D 04 05 25

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 15/2022

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 45,19,737/-

¶4

BANK OF BARODA,

¶5

A body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970, having its Head Head Office at Mandvi, Baroda State Gujarat and one of its Branch namely Stressed Assets Recovery Branch at Regional Office, CIDCO, Aurangabad, through this Attorney Mr. Vishal Raj Gupta.

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. M/s. SMK Global Security Solutions Pvt., Ltd., Through its Director Mr. Karbhari Ramkisan Jadhwar And Mr. Dhananjay Jaykumar Gote, Shop No. 10/11, Anand Plaza, Daudpura, Opp. Govt. Milk Dairy, Jalna Road, Aurangabad.

¶9

2. Mr. Karbhari Ramkisan Jadhwar, Age: 45 years, Occupation : Business, R/o.: Flat No. 9, Vyankatesh Apartment, Plot No. 1, Sarang Housing Society, Garkheda, Aurangabad-09.

(OA No.15/2022)

Page 1 of 8

[AMBADAS]

3. Mr. Dhananjay Jaykumar Gote, Age: 45 years, Occupation: Business, R/o.: Flat No. 7, Vyankatesh Apartment, Plot No. 1, Sarang Housing Society, Garkheda, Aurangabad-09.

¶14

…Defendants

¶15

APPEARANCES

¶16

For the Applicant Mr. Sameer J. Pande -Advocate For Defendants Ex-parte

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Delivered on 25.02.2026

¶19

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 45,19,737/- (Rupees Forty Five Lacs, Nineteen Thousand, Seven Hundred and Thirty Seven only), along with future interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 30.08.2021, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶20

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶21

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendant No. 1 approached and requested the Applicant Bank for Overdraft Facility. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the Defendant, the

(OA No.15/2022)

Page 2 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Applicant Bank sanctioned Overdraft Facility of Rs. 60,00,000/vide sanction letter dated 04.07.2014 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for the aforesaid loan Facility was @13.50% p.a. with monthly rests. The defendant No. 1 also availed FITL Loan of Rs, 2,48,545/59 under COVID-19 scheme. The Defendant also agreed to pay additional interest @2% by way of liquidated damages in the event of any default in repayment.

¶26

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendant executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letter, letter of undertaking, demand promissory note, mortgage deed dated 08.07.2014 & hypothecation agreement. Additionally defendant No. 2 & 3 stood as guarantors for defendant No. 1 and executed deed of guarantee on 08.07.2014 in favour of the Applicant Bank.

(OA No.15/2022)

Page 3 of 8

[AMBADAS]

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the

¶31

aforesaid loan facility, the Defendants created first charge over

¶32

their immovable property by executing mortgage deed dated

¶33

08.07.2014 in favour of the Applicant Bank. The mortgage was

¶34

created in respect of the following properties-

¶35

i) All that piece and parcel of Shop No. 10, admeasuring 21.65 Sq. Meters, of Anand Plaza Apartment, developed on City Survey No., 14822, Daudpura, Opposite Government Milk Dairy, Jalna Road, Aurangabad, owned by defendant no. 2.

¶36

ii) All that piece and parcel of Shop No. UG-18, admeasuring 16.62 Sq. Meters, of Anand Plaza Apartment, developed on City Survey No., 14822, Daudpura, Opposite Government Milk Dairy, Jalna Road, Aurangabad, owned by defendant no. 2.

¶37

iii) All that piece and parcel of Shop No. UG-19, admeasuring 16.62 Sq. Meters, of Anand Plaza Apartment, developed on City Survey No., 14822, Daudpura, Opposite Government Milk Dairy, Jalna Road, Aurangabad, owned by defendant no. 2.

¶38

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

¶39

operate the loan account properly and failed to pay the agreed

(OA No.15/2022)

Page 4 of 8

[AMBADAS]

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. Therefore, on 21.06.2021 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.

¶44

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were served through summons. Hence, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 11.07.2023.

¶45

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Vishal Raj Gupta, Chief Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Annexure A-1 to A-28 along with list of documents Exh. 5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

(OA No.15/2022)

Page 5 of 8

[AMBADAS]

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

¶50

Since the defendants failed to appear and 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.

¶51

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

¶52

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @15% p. a. from the date of filing i.e. 30.08.2021 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 @ 11% per annum (simple) on outstanding amount, it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶53

ORDER

¶54

(A) Original Application No. 15/2022 is allowed with costs.

(OA No.15/2022)

Page 6 of 8

[AMBADAS]

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 45,19,737/- (Rupees Forty Five Lacs, Nineteen Thousand, Seven Hundred and Thirty Seven only), along with future interest @ 11% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the O. A. i.e. 30.08.2021 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶59

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the mortgage of the following immovable properties vide documents at annexure A-2 & A-3 in list of documents Exh. 5.

¶60

¶61

¶62

iii) All that piece and parcel of Shop No. UG-19, admeasuring 16.62 Sq. Meters, of Anand Plaza

(OA No.15/2022)

Page 7 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Apartment, developed on City Survey No., 14822, Daudpura, Opposite Government Milk Dairy, Jalna Road, Aurangabad, owned by defendant no. 2.

¶67

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged immovable properties and hypothecated articles/goods

¶68

etc., to recover its dues.

¶69

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶70

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

¶71

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶72

Sd/Pronounced in open court. (Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Place: Aurangabad Presiding Officer Date:.25.02.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶73

(OA No.15/2022)

¶74

Page 8 of 8

¶75

[AMBADAS]

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Smk Global Security Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Smk Global Security Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

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

Canara Bank versus M/S Arth Construction

Idbi Bank versus Mina W/o Satyaprem Mehta

Canara Bank versus Priyanka Dipak Sarode

State Bank of India versus Vishal Bhagwan Gaikwad

Ms Mavin Switchgears and Control Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India

Mavin Infra Private Limited versus State Bank of India