Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Kirti Santosh Jadhav (Rathod)

DRT10 Aug 2026OA/221/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Bank of Baroda for recovery of Rs. 62.93 lakhs plus interest from borrowers and guarantors who defaulted on an agricultural term loan. The court granted recovery and adjudicated the secured mortgage property as collateral.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of principal and interest; charge enforced on mortgaged property; Recovery Certificate issued.

Bank of Baroda versus Kirti Santosh Jadhav (Rathod) — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 02.03.2025 Registered on: 11.04.2025 Decided on: 10.08.2026 Duration: Y M D 01 05 08

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 221/2025

¶3

Bank of Baroda,

¶4

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 62,93,564.60/-

¶5

(erstwhile DENA BANK, Amalgamated into Bank of Baroda with effect from 1^st April 2019 in terms of Gazette of India No. GSR No. 2E dated 2^nd January 2019 issued by Ministry of Finance, Government of India) a Body Corporate and constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, 1970, having its Head Office at Mandvi, Baroda, Gujarat State and branch office amongst other places of business at Sakri Branch, Taluka Sakri, Dist. Dhule – 424304, Through its Authorized Officer, Shri. KISHOR VILAS WAGH, Age: Major, Occ.: Service, R/o.: Sakri Branch, Taluka Sakri, Dist. Dhule 424304.

… Applicant

Versus

(OA No.221/2025)

Page 1 of 8

[AMBADAS]

1. Mrs. Kirti Santosh Jadhav (Rathod), Age: Major, Occu.: Agriculture, Row House No. 11, Chintamani Park, Meri Link Road, Chakradhar Nagar, Panchavati, Nashik 422003. AND Room No. 67, Bidi Kamgar Nagar, Nashik 422207.

¶12

2. Santosh Mitharam Jadhav

¶13

Age: Major, Occu.: Agriculture, Row House No. 11, Chintamani Park, Meri Link Road, Chakradhar Nagar, Panchavati, Nashik 422003. AND Room No. 67, Bidi Kamgar Nagar, Nashik 422207.

¶14

…Defendants

¶15

3. Sanjay Ananda Patil,

¶16

Age: Major, Occu.: Agriculture, Datta Colony, Behind Dipak Deore Hospital, Perajpur Road, Sakri, Tal. Sakri, Dist. Dhule 424304.

¶17

4. Shivdas Tanu Sonawane (Vanjari), Age: Major, Occu.: Agriculture, Plot No. 273, Nijampur, Tal. Sakri, Dist. Dhule 4243053. APPEARANCES

¶18

For the Applicant Mr. Atul A. Mishra - Advocate For Defendants Ex-parte

(OA No.221/2025)

Page 2 of 8

[AMBADAS]

JUDGMENT

Delivered on 10.08.2026

¶24

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the

¶25

recovery of a sum of Rs. 62,93,564.60/- (Rupees Sixty Two Lacs, Ninety Three Thousand, Five Hundred and Sixty Four and Sixty Paisa only), along with further interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 02.03.2025, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶26

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶27

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendant No. 1 had approached and requested the Applicant Bank for a Term loan. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the Defendant, the Applicant Bank sanctioned a Term loan facility of Rs. 23,00,000/- for the purpose of commercial Horticulture garden on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for the Term loan was @ 11.75 p.a. with yearly rests. The

(OA No.221/2025)

Page 3 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Defendant also agreed to pay additional interest @ 2% by way of

¶32

¶33

liquidated damages in the event of any default in repayment. In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendant No. 1 executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letter, letter of continuity, demand promissory notes, Hypothecation agreement, etc. Additionally, Defendant No. 2 to 4 stood as guarantors for Defendant No. 1 and executed a deed of guarantee on 22.03.2014 in favour of the

¶34

Applicant Bank.

¶35

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility sanctioned to them, the Defendant No. 1 created first charge over his immovable property executing the declaration U/sec. 5 (1) of the Maharashtra State Agriculture Credit Act, 1974 bearing book No. 372 dated 10.03.2014 in favour of the Applicant Bank. The mortgage was created in respect of the

following property

(OA No.221/2025)

Page 4 of 8

[AMBADAS]

All that piece and parcel of Gut No. 332, admeasuring 8 Hectare 90 R, situated at Village Vasmar, Tq. Sakri, Dist. Dhulewal, District Dhule.

¶41

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 on 04.06.2018. Therefore, on 27.12.2024 the applicant bank issued legal notice to the defendant through their advocate. Despite service of Notices, the defendant failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

(OA No.221/2025)

Page 5 of 8

[AMBADAS]

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were duly served. Hence, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 24.04.2026.

¶46

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Kishor Vilas Wagh, Branch Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Exh. AW-1(1) to AW-1(9) along with list of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶47

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

¶48

Since the defendants 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.

(OA No.221/2025)

Page 6 of 8

[AMBADAS]

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

¶53

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing i.e. 02.03.2025 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 @ 7% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶54

ORDER

¶55

(A) Original Application No. 221/2025 is allowed with costs.

¶56

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 62,93,564.60/- (Rupees Sixty Two Lacs, Ninety Three Thousand, Five Hundred and Sixty Four and Sixty Paisa only), along with future interest @ 7% per annum (simple) on outstanding amount from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 02.03.2025 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

(OA No.221/2025)

Page 7 of 8

[AMBADAS]

declaration U/sec. 5 (1) of the Maharashtra State Agriculture Credit Act, 1974 bearing book No. 372 dated 10.03.2014 at Exh. AW-1(7) in the list of documents Exh. 5.

¶62

All that piece and parcel of Gut No. 332, admeasuring 8 Hectare 90 R, situated at Village Vasmar, Tq. Sakri, Dist. Dhulewal, District Dhule.

¶63

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

¶64

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶65

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

¶66

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶67

Sd/-

¶68

Pronounced in open court. (Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Place: Aurangabad Presiding Officer Date:.10.08.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶69

(OA No.221/2025)

¶70

Page 8 of 8

¶71

[AMBADAS]

Bank of Baroda v. Kirti Santosh Jadhav (Rathod)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Kirti Santosh Jadhav (Rathod)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus Abdul Aamer Malik

Union Bank of India versus Gorakh Laxman Soutade

Hdfc Bank versus Manzoor Badiulla Beg

Idbi Bank versus Suyog S/O Shamlal Kayasth

Axis Bank versus Janata Pashukhadya House

Idbi Bank versus Anil Nivrutti Nalage