Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Govind

DRT6 Feb 2026OA/1500/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an ex-parte application filed by Bank of Maharashtra for recovery of dues. The Court adjusted penal interest from the claim and reduced the future interest rate to 9% p.a. per annum before directing payment and enforcement of mortgage.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs.49,70,314/- with 9% simple future interest from filing date; enforcement of mortgage debenture; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Govind — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 03.02.2021 Registered on: 17.11.2023 Decided on: 06.02.2026 Duration: Y M D 05 -- 03

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.1500/2023.

¶3

Bank of Maharashtra ,

¶4

A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisitions & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Head Office at “Lokmangal” 1501, Shivajinagar, Pune-5 and Branch amongst other places at Supra Branch, Market Yard, Supa, Taluka Baramati, District Pune-412 204.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Mr. Govind Maruti Kutwal 2. Mr. Hanumant Shivaji Khude 3. Mr. Rajendra Kisan Kutwal All R/at Patil Wasti, Kutwalwadi, Taluka Baramati, District Pune-412204 . …Defendants

¶8

APPEARANCES

¶9

For the Applicant Mr. R. B. Ganbote - Advocate For the Defendants Ex parte.

¶10

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.51,03,795/-

(OA No.1500/2023)

Page 1 of 5

[ANIL]

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 6^th February, 2026)

¶15

The Applicant Bank has filed present application for recovery of Rs.51,03,795/- together with future interest @15.25% per annum with monthly rests from 20.12.2020 till the date of filing the Original Application and thereafter till repayment/realization of the entire dues from the defendants.

¶16

¶17

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶18

The Applicant Bank states that Defendant Nos.1 to 3 approached Applicant Bank in February 2014 and requested for Term Loan facility of Rs.35 Lakhs for purchase of 60 cows and construction of cattle shed to Defendant No.1.

¶19

The Applicant Bank considered request of Defendants and granted Term Loan facility of Rs.35,00,000/- to the defendant No.1 for purchase of 60 cows and construction of cattle shed to Defendant No.1, on certain terms and condition.

¶20

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

¶21

In addition to this, defendant No.1 has executed Mortgage Deed on 18.03.2014, which is duly registered with Sub Registrar Office Kedgaon at Serial No.1382/2014, in favour of the applicant bank for securing Term Loan of Rs.35 Lakhs of the following immovable properties :-

(OA No.1500/2023)

Page 2 of 5

[ANIL]

Mortgaged Properties : -

¶26

All that piece and parcel of Gat No.648 admeasuring 01H 87R assessed at Rs.1.85Ps; Gat No.649 admeasuring 00H 79R assessed at Rs.1.91Ps; Gat No.546 admeasuring 00H 36R assessed at Rs.0.57Ps and Gat No.536 admeasuring 00H 24R assessed at Rs.0.50Ps, totally admeasuring 03H 26R at village Kutwalwadi, Taluka Baramati, within the limits of Registration District Pune, Sub Registration District Kedgaon, District-Pune, more particularly described in Para No.5.7 of the Original Application.

¶27

Defendant No.1 has executed Balance and Security Confirmation letter in favour of the applicant bank and confirmed the balance in the Term Loan Account. Similarly, on 03.04.2017 Defendant Nos.2 and 3 have also executed Balance and Security Confirmation Letter in favour of the applicant bank and confirmed of execution of security documents in favour of the applicant bank.

¶28

The Applicant Bank contended that Defendant No.1 failed and neglected to comply with the terms and conditions in which the said facility was granted to him. The Term Loan account of Defendant No.1 was running irregular and defendants were reluctant to pay the amounts, hence, the account has become NPA as per Reserve Bank of India norms. Applicant therefore, regularly and repeatedly called upon Defendant No.1 to regularize the account, but he failed and neglected to comply with the same. Hence, the applicant bank is constrained to file this Original Application.

¶29

Hence, this application is filed.

(OA No.1500/2023)

Page 3 of 5

[ANIL]

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per order dated 14.07.2025 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶34

The Applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Manoj Dinkar Bhongale, Manager and has produced on record the Original Loan Transaction documents at Exhibits AW-1 to AW10, which corroborates the case of the Applicant Bank.

¶35

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

¶36

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.

¶37

The Applicant Bank has claimed Penal Interest of Rs.1,33,481/-, which cannot be granted and the same is required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.51,03,795/- is reduced to Rs . 49,70,314 /-.

¶38

The Applicant Bank has claimed future interest @15.25% p.a. for the loan facility availed. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% p.a. (Simple) for all the loan facilities, it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶39

Hence, I pass the following order:-

(OA No.1500/2023)

Page 4 of 5

[ANIL]

ORDER

(A) Original Application No.1500/2023 is allowed with costs.

¶45

(B) Defendant Nos.1to3 either jointly or severally shall pay sum of Rs . 49,70,314 /- (Rupees Fourty Nine Lakh Seventy Thousand Three Hundred Fourteen only) with future interest @9% per annum (Simple) to the Applicant Bank from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e.03.02.2021 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶46

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the creation of Mortgage regarding immovable property i.e. all that piece and parcel of Gat No.648 admeasuring 01H 87R assessed at Rs.1.85Ps; Gat No.649 admeasuring 00H 79R assessed at Rs.1.91Ps; Gat No.546 admeasuring 00H 36R assessed at Rs.0.57Ps and Gat No.536 admeasuring 00H 24R assessed at Rs.0.50Ps, totally admeasuring 03H 26R at village Kutwalwadi, Taluka Baramati, within the limits of Registration District Pune, Sub Registration District Kedgaon, District-Pune, more particularly described in Para No.5.7 of the Original Application

¶47

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

¶48

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶49

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

¶50

Sd/Place : Pune (Dilip G. Murumkar) Date: 06.02.2026 Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶51

(OA No.1500/2023)

¶52

Page 5 of 5

¶53

[ANIL]

Bank of Maharashtra v. Govind

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Govind

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

Union Bank of India versus Bhaskar

Bank of Maharashtra versus Anil Ganpat Chavan

Union Bank of India versus Sujit Prabhakar More

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

Union Bank of India versus Anil

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