Allowed

State Bank of India v. Ankush Sudam Jadhav

DRT13 Aug 2026OA/7/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal, hearing an ex-parte application filed by State Bank of India, allowed the claim for recovery of outstanding dues based on unrebutted evidence due to the defendant's absence. Future interest was modified from the claimed rate to 8% simple interest per annum.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 23,00,784/- plus 8% simple interest per annum from 26.11.2024 till realization. Legislature authority to sell mortgaged property and issue Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus Ankush Sudam Jadhav — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 26.11.2024 Registered on: 04.01.2025 Decided on: 13.08.2026 Duration: Y M D 01 08 17

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 7/2025

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 23,00,784/-

¶4

State Bank of India, A body corporate constituted under State Bank of India Act, 1955, Having its Local Head Office at, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 and one of its branch Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Aurangabad, At Plot No. 1 Ground Floor, Administrative Building, Town Centre, N-5, CIDCO, CHH. Sambhajinagar 431004, through Dinesh Ashok Bhagurkar, Age: 47 years, Occ.: Service Deputy Manager & City Case Officer, State Bank of India, Branch at SAR, Branch Aurangabad and having authority to file the Application which includes the authority to sign and verify the application.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ankush Sudam Jadhav,

¶8

R/o.: Flat No. C-7, Stilt Floor, Saffron Park, Gut No. 62 Nasik Road, Opp. Ramgopal Nagar, Padegaon Tal. & Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar 431001 Also at

¶9

Directorate of Economics and Statistics Ministry Regional Office, Professor Colony, N-12, Cidco, Harsul Road, Chh. Sambhajinagar.

…Defendant.

(OA No.7/2025)

Page 1 of 8

[AMBADAS]

APPEARANCES

For the Applicant For Defendant

¶16

Mr. Ashok M. Kekan -Advocate Ex-parte

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Delivered on 13.08.2026

¶19

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 23,00,784/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs, Seven Hundred and Eighty Four only), along with further interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 26.11.2024, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendant.

¶20

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶21

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendant had approached and requested the Applicant Bank for Home loan facility. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the Defendant, the Applicant Bank sanctioned Home loan facility of Rs. 6,80,000/- & Rs. 20,000/- as Funding of Home Loan Insurance cover vide arrangement letter dated 25.05.2022 on certain terms and

(OA No.7/2025)

Page 2 of 8

[AMBADAS]

conditions. The agreed rate of interest for aforesaid loan facility

¶26

was @ 6.75% per annum with monthly rests. The Defendant also agreed to pay additional interest @2% by way of liquidated damages in the event of any default in repayment.

¶27

Thereafter, Defendant had again approached and requested the Applicant Bank for Home Top-up loan. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the Defendant, the Applicant Bank sanctioned Home Top-up loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- vide arrangement letter dated 25.05.2022 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for aforesaid loan facility was @ 7.15% per annum with monthly rests. The Defendant also agreed to pay additional interest @2% by way of liquidated damages in the event of any default in repayment.

¶28

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendant executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included arrangement letters, registered sale deed bearing

(OA No.7/2025)

Page 3 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Daybook Sr. No. 4145/2013 dated 05.09.2013, demand promissory notes, etc., in favour of the applicant bank.

¶33

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendant executed registered sale

¶34

deed bearing Daybook Sr. No. 4145/2013 dated 05.09.2013 in

¶35

respect of following property:

¶36

All that piece and parcel of property known as Flat No. C-7, Stilt First Floor, Saffron Park, Gut No. 62 admeasuring area 37.17 Sq. mtrs. Carpet area & Built Up area 41.81 Sq. mtrs., Nasik Road, Opp. Ramgopal Nagar, Padegaon Tal. And Dist. Aurangabad, which is bounded as under:

¶37

East: Duct and Staircase, West: Margin wall below, South: Margin and Building-B, North: Flat No.C-8.

¶38

The applicant bank contended that the defendant has failed to keep his promise and commitments agreed by him with regard to due repayment of the loan amount. The defendant 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

(OA No.7/2025)

Page 4 of 8

[AMBADAS]

amount and called upon the defendant to pay with the agreed rate of interest thereon, but the defendant failed and neglected to pay the same. The loan account of the defendant became irregular and classified as NPA on 24.04.2024. Therefore, on 11.11.2024 the applicant bank issued legal Notice to the defendant. The defendant failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶43

The defendant failed to appear in matter though he was served through RPAD. Hence, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 25.04.2025.

¶44

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Mr. Dinesh Ashok Bhagurkar, Authorized Officer of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Annexure A-1 to A-24 along with list of documentsExh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

(OA No.7/2025)

Page 5 of 8

[AMBADAS]

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

¶49

Since the defendant 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.

¶50

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

¶51

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @ 9.25% & @ 9.65% p.a. from the date of filing i.e. 26.11.2024 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 @ 8% per annum (simple) on outstanding amount, it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

(OA No.7/2025)

Page 6 of 8

[AMBADAS]

ORDER

(A) Original Application No. 7/2025 is allowed with costs.

¶57

(B) The defendant shall pay to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 23,00,784/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs, Seven Hundred and Eighty Four only), along with future interest @ 8% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 26.11.2024 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶58

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the mortgage of the following immovable properties vide documents at Annexure A-14 to A-16 in the list of documents Exh. 5.

¶59

¶60

East: Duct and Staircase, West: Margin wall below, South: Margin and Building-B, North: Flat No.C-8.

(OA No.7/2025)

Page 7 of 8

[AMBADAS]

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged

¶65

immovable property, to recover its dues.

¶66

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶67

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

¶68

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶69

Sd/Pronounced in open court. (Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Place: Aurangabad Presiding Officer Date:.13.08.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶70

(OA No.7/2025)

¶71

Page 8 of 8

¶72

[AMBADAS]

State Bank of India v. Ankush Sudam Jadhav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Ankush Sudam Jadhav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus Jayaram Lahanu Hase

State Bank of India versus Anand Sahebrao Kakde

Hdfc Bank versus Sumedh Ashokrao Gaikwad

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S Bahujan Hitay Magasvargiya Auyodik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit

Bank of India versus Rajendra Kisan Berad

Central Bank of India versus Vaibhav Pandurang Gagare