Allowed

Canara Bank v. Suryakant Chokhaji Dolse (Deceased)

DRT12 Mar 2026OA/23/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application under the DRT Act, the applicant Bank sought recovery of Rs. 85,62,370/- plus interest from borrowers who defaulted on a hypothecation loan. The respondents appeared ex-parte. The Tribunal allowed the application and directed joint and several payment of the claim with future interest at 12% p.a. and issuance of a recovery certificate secured by hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed. Defendants to pay Rs. 85,62,370/- plus future interest at 12% p.a.; recovery certificate issued; power to sell hypothecated assets granted.

Canara Bank versus Suryakant Chokhaji Dolse… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 26.08.2021 Registered on: 02.03.2022 Decided on: 12.03.2026 Duration: Y M D 04 06 12

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 23/2022

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 85,62,370/-

¶4

CANARA BANK, [erstwhile SYNDICATE BANK] A body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 and having its Head office at Jaya Chamarajendra Road, Bengaluru & branches amongst the other places at R.P. Marg, Rajendra Building, Jalna through it’s Authorized person Mr. Vibhash Kumar s/o. Ramanand Prasad (Branch Head), Age: 56 yrs., Occ.: Service, R/o.: R.P. Marg, Jalna.

¶5

Versus

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

1. Mr. Suryakant Chokhaji Dolse (now deceased) Through his LR Mr. Vilas Chokhaji Dolse Age: Major, Occ.: Business, R/o.: Mandevalgaon, Post Pirpimpalgaon,

(OA No.23/2022)

Page 1 of 7

[AMBADAS]

Tal. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna-431213.

¶12

2. Mr. Vilas Chokhaji Dolse, Age: Major, Occ.: Business, R/o.: Mandevalgaon, Post Pirpimpalgaon, Tal. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna-431213.

¶13

APPEARANCES

¶14

…Defendants

¶15

For the Applicant Mr. K.D. Pande -Advocate For Defendants Ex-parte

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Delivered on 12.03.2026

¶18

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 85,62,370/- (Rupees Eighty Five Lacs, Sixty Two Thousand, Three Hundred and Seventy only), along with future interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 26.08.2021, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding

¶19

dues from the Defendants.

¶20

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶21

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendants No. 1 (now deceased) had approached and requested the Applicant Bank for

(OA No.23/2022)

Page 2 of 7

[AMBADAS]

Hypothecation loan facility. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the Defendant, the Applicant Bank sanctioned Hypothecation loan facility of Rs. 7,60,000/- vide sanction letter dated 23.01.2006 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for the aforesaid loan was @11% 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.

¶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, demand promissory note, hypothecation agreement etc. Additionally defendant No. 2 stood as guarantor for defendant no. 1 and executed a deed of guarantee on 23.01.2006 in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶27

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendants executed hypothecation

(OA No.23/2022)

Page 3 of 7

[AMBADAS]

agreement thereby hypothecating complete stocks-in-trade, raw materials, finished goods all other goods, book debts, plant and machinery etc.

¶32

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 01.01.2007. Therefore, on 09.12.2020 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.23/2022)

Page 4 of 7

[AMBADAS]

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were served RPAD. Hence, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 24.12.2025.

¶37

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Mrs. Vandana w/o. Dilip Karande, Chief Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Exh. A to Q as per list of documents is Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶38

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

¶39

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.

¶40

The applicant Bank has claimed charge over hypothecated properties of the borrowers.

(OA No.23/2022)

Page 5 of 7

[AMBADAS]

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @ 16.45% p. a. on term loan from the date of filing i.e. 26.08.2021 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 @ 12% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(A) Original Application No. 23/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶47

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 85,62,370/- (Rupees Eighty Five Lacs, Sixty Two Thousand, Three Hundred and Seventy only), along with future interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 26.08.2021 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶48

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the hypothecation of complete stocks-in-trade, raw materials, finished goods all other goods, book debts, plant and machinery vide documents at Exh G in List of documents Exh. 5.

(OA No.23/2022)

Page 6 of 7

[AMBADAS]

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

¶53

articles/goods etc., to recover its dues.

¶54

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶55

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

¶56

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶57

Sd/Pronounced in open court. (Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Place: Aurangabad Presiding Officer Date:.12.03.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶58

(OA No.23/2022)

¶59

Page 7 of 7

¶60

[AMBADAS]

Canara Bank v. Suryakant Chokhaji Dolse (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Suryakant Chokhaji Dolse (Deceased)

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

Bank of India versus M/S Oams Agro Agency

Central Bank of India versus Amit Jairamdas Makhijani (Deceased)

Bank of Maharashtra versus Kashinath Sopan Lipane

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Govind Waman Turkunde

Union Bank of India versus Mahadev Abaji Kaigude

Idbi Bank versus M/s. Sahara Sheti Udyog