Allowed

Idbi Bank v. Mina W/o Satyaprem Mehta

DRT23 Feb 2026OA/215/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by IDBI Bank for recovery of Rs. 92.02 Lacs plus future interest against four defendants who had defaulted on sanctioned term and premium loans. The court evaluated the loan documents, rejected the defence regarding RBI norms, and directed payment secured by mortgaged flats.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed. Defendants to pay Rs. 92,02,144 plus 9% simple interest; mortgage on flats utilized for security.

Idbi Bank versus Mina W/o Satyaprem Mehta — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 15.02.2023 Registered on: 05.12.2023 Decided on: 23.02.2026 Duration: Y M D 03 00 08

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 215/2023

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 92,02,144/-

¶4

IDBI BANK LTD.,

¶5

A Company registered under the Banking Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) and a banking Company within the meaning of Section 2 (20) of the Companies Act 2013 and a banking Company with meaning of Section 5 (c) of the Banking Regulation Act 1949 (10 of 1049) & having its registered office at IDBI Tower, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-5, State Maharashtra And one of its Branch namely Raghbir Chambers, Vidya Nagar, Aurangabad, Through its D.G.M. and Authorized Signatory Mr. Manoj Chokha Ubale.

… Applicant

Versus

(OA No.215/2023)

Page 1 of 11

[AMBADAS]

1. Mina W/o Satyaprem Mehta, Age: 37 years, Occ.: Coaching Classes, R/o.: Flat No. 11 and 12, Third Floor, Nabharaj Nandanvan Apartment, Gut No. 735, Opposite Air Port, Chikalthana, Aurangabad.

¶12

2. Satyaprem S/o. Jagannath Mehta, Age: 45 years, Occ.: Business, R/o.: Row House No. 54, Kasalwal Poorva, Opposite Air Port, Chikalthana, Aurangabad.

¶13

3. Leena W/o Ramesh Mehta,

¶14

Age: 41 years, Occ.: Business, R/o.: Flat No. 11, Nabharaj Nandanvan Near Shivtara School, Chikalthana, Aurangabad.

¶15

4. Ramesh S/o. Jagannath Mehta,

¶16

Age: 46 years, Occ.: Business, R/o.: Row House No. 52, Kasalwal Poorva, Opposite Air Port, Chikalthana, Aurangabad.

¶17

…Defendants

¶18

APPEARANCES

¶19

Mr. Sameer J. Pande -Advocate Mr. Manoj S. Shinde - Advocate Ex-parte

¶20

For the Applicant For Defendants No. 1,2,4. For Defendant No. 3.

¶21

JUDGMENT Delivered on 23.02.2026

¶22

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the

¶23

recovery of a sum of Rs. 92,02,144/- (Rupees Ninety Two Lacs, Two

(OA No.215/2023)

Page 2 of 11

[AMBADAS]

Thousand, One Hundred and Forty Four only), along with future interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 15.02.2023, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶28

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶29

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendant No. 1 to 4 approached and requested the Applicant Bank for Term loan facility & Premium Loan. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the Defendants, the Applicant Bank Sanctioned Term loan (Residential) facility of Rs. 81,00,000/- and insurance Premium Loan of Rs. 1,26,870/- vide sanction letter dated 24.11.2017 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for the aforesaid loan was @9.80% p.a. with monthly rests. The Defendants also agreed to pay additional interest @2% by way of liquidated damages in the event of any default in repayment.

(OA No.215/2023)

Page 3 of 11

[AMBADAS]

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendants

¶34

executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letters, hypothecation agreements, title deed dated 28.11.2017 and housing loan agreement, demand promissory notes, etc., in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶35

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendants executed title deed dated 28.11.2017 in favor of the applicant bank. The mortgage was created in respect of the following properties:

¶36

i) All that piece and parcel of Flat No. 11, admeasuring 97.88 Sq. Meters, 3^rd Floor of Nabharaj Nandavan Apartment, constructed on Gut No. 735 of Chikalthana, Opp. Air Port, Aurangabad, which is bounded as under:

¶37

East: Flat No. 12, West: Flat No. 10, North: Entrance Lobby, South: Side Margin.

¶38

ii) All that piece and parcel of Flat No. 12, admeasuring 118.14 Sq. Meters, 3^rd Floor of Nabharaj Nandavan Apartment, constructed on Gut No. 735 of Chikalthana, Opp. Air Port, Aurangabad, which is bounded as under: East: Rare Margin, West: Flat No. 11,

(OA No.215/2023)

Page 4 of 11

[AMBADAS]

North: Entrance Lobby, South: Side Margin.

¶43

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 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 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 23.11.2022 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.

(OA No.215/2023)

Page 5 of 11

[AMBADAS]

The defendant No. 3 failed to appear in matter though he was served through summons. Hence, defendant No. 3 was proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 29.04.2025.

¶48

The defendant No. 1, 2 and 4 appeared in the matter and filed their written statement vide Exh. 9, inter alia, denying all the contentions raised by the applicant bank. The defendant No. 1, 2 and 4 state that the recovery application filed by the bank is not maintainable in law and deserves to be dismissed as there is no proper cause of action, the documents relied upon by the bank are insufficiently stamped and therefore inadmissible in evidence, and the bank has not followed the norms, guidelines and circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India. They contend that the bank has charged exorbitant interest illegally and that the defendants have otherwise maintained their account as per RBI norms without any intentional default. It is submitted that the proceedings initiated by the bank are illegal as the account was wrongly classified as NPA without mentioning the date of NPA, the statutory requirements under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act

(OA No.215/2023)

Page 6 of 11

[AMBADAS]

were not properly complied with, and even symbolic possession taken is illegal and void. The defendants deny the alleged outstanding amount and state that the bank has approached the Tribunal without clean hands by suppressing material facts. They further explain that due to matrimonial disputes and financial difficulties, some instalments could not be paid on time, however, a substantial amount of Rs. 16,50,000/- has already been deposited and they are ready and willing to pay the remaining Rs. 7,00,000/- to regularize the account and continue future instalments. It is alleged that once the bank accepted the deposited amount, the cause of action does not survive. The respondents submit that the recovery proceedings are excessive, contrary to law, time-barred, and initiated with malafide intention, causing mental harassment and financial loss to them, and therefore the entire recovery application deserves to be dismissed with costs.

¶53

The applicant Bank has filed Evidence Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Mr. Manoj S/o. Chokha Ubale, Branch Head of the

(OA No.215/2023)

Page 7 of 11

[AMBADAS]

applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Annexure A-1 to A-23 along with list of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶58

I have heard arguments of the learned Advocate for the applicant Bank and the learned counsel for defendant No. 1, 2 and 4 and gone through the material on record thoroughly and carefully My finding along with reasons are as under:-

¶59

The above documentary evidence of the applicant bank clearly shows that the defendants have availed loan from the applicant bank and executed necessary bank documents in token thereof as referred above. Mere denial of the defendants is not sufficient to rebut the documentary as well as evidence affidavit of the bank. The defendants have failed to prove how the application is false and how the bank has obtained their signatures on blank papers. This OA has been filed when the defendants committed default in paying of loan amount and the loan account was declared NPA and hence, the applicant bank has cause of action to file the

(OA No.215/2023)

Page 8 of 11

[AMBADAS]

present OA. Therefore, from the above documentary evidence and arguments of the applicant, I come to the conclusion that the applicant bank has proved its case against the defendants.

¶64

The defendant No. 3 has no contested the application as he was proceeded ex-parte.

¶65

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

¶66

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @15% p. a. from the date of filing i.e. 15.02.2023 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 @ 9% per annum (simple) on outstanding amount, it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶67

ORDER

¶68

(A) Original Application No. 215/2023 is allowed with

¶69

costs.

(OA No.215/2023)

Page 9 of 11

[AMBADAS]

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 92,02,144/- (Rupees Ninety Two Lacs, Two Thousand, One Hundred and Forty Four only), along with future interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the O.A. i.e. 15.02.2023 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶74

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the mortgage of the following vide document at Annexure A-11 in list of documents Exh. 5.

(OA No.215/2023)

Page 10 of 11

[AMBADAS]

North: Entrance Lobby, South: Side Margin.

¶81

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged immovable properties and hypothecated articles/goods etc., to recover its dues.

¶82

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶83

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

¶84

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶85

Sd/-

¶86

Pronounced in open court. (Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Place: Aurangabad Presiding Officer Date:.23.02.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶87

(OA No.215/2023)

¶88

Page 11 of 11

¶89

[AMBADAS]

Idbi Bank v. Mina W/o Satyaprem Mehta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idbi Bank v. Mina W/o Satyaprem Mehta

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 Priyanka Dipak Sarode

State Bank of India versus Ms M.S. Industries

Idbi Bank Limited versus M/S D. Navalchand and Company

Canara Bank versus M/S Arth Construction

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

State Bank of India versus Vishal Bhagwan Gaikwad