Allowed

Indian Bank v. Krantisinh Nana Patil Multistate Dudh Utpadak and Prakriya Sangh Limited Knpmdupsl

DRT26 Mar 2026OA/261/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Indian Bank for recovery of Rs.9.16 Crore dues from a cooperative society and its guarantors. Being an ex-parte hearing, the Tribunal granted relief allowing the bank to recover the principal, reduced future interest, and sell mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to defendants to pay Rs.9,16,84,090/- with future interest, mortgagging specified immovable properties, and right to sell mortgaged properties.

Indian Bank versus Krantisinh Nana Patil Multistate Dudh Utpadak… — Money Laundering | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 26.05.2022 Registered on: 18.02.2023 Decided on: 26.03.2026 Duration: Y M D 03 10 --

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.261/2023.

¶3

INDIAN BANK ,

¶4

A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and transfer of undertakings) Act, V of 1970 Indian Bank, having its Branch office at SAM Small Pune, Building No.2, Plot No. S-213, Jupiter Housing Society Nagar Road, Kalyani Nagar Branch, Pune-411 006.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s. Krantisinh Nana Patil Multistate Dudh Utpadak & Prakriya Sangh Ltd.

¶8

Mr. Jayram Navnath More Both R/at Gat No.46, Math Parisar, At & Post Hanmant Wadiye, Taluka Kadegaon, Dist. Sangli-415 305.

¶9

Mr. Sudhir Siddhanath Indalkar R/at Indalkar Vasti, Ukride, Post Mahimangad,Taluka Maan, District Satara-415 023.

¶10

Also at - Flat No.7, Second floor, Heram Residency Apartment, Commercial Plot No.61, Village Chikhli District Centre, Haveli, Pune-62,

(OA No.261/2023)

Page 1 of 11

[ANIL]

4. Mr. Sandip Krushnadev Jadhav

¶15

R/at Kurli, Post Chinchani, Tal. Khanapur, Dist. Sangli- 415 305. Also at – 406, Jadhavmala, Sidhdanath West Side area and Ghadgewadi, Kurli, Khanapur Vita, Sangli- 415 311.

¶16

Mr. Vaibhav Ramchandra Sawant R/at Anuram Niwas, Sawarkar Nagar, Vita, Taluka Khanapur, District - Sangli-415 305. Also at – 1317- 5, Dhanvantinagar, Vita Lengarerod East Baju Vita, Tal. Khanapur Vita, District Sangli – 415 311. Also at – Teacher, Government Primary School, Karad, District Satara – 415 110.

¶17

6. Mr. Ranjit Vilasrao Patil

¶18

At & Post Hanmant Wadiye, Taluka Kadegaon, Dist. Sangli 415 305. Also at – Krantisinh, Old Bhalwani Road, Vivekanand Nagar, Vita, Sangli – 415 311.

¶19

Mrs. Mangal Uttam More R/at & Post Hanmant Wadiye, Taluka Kadegaon, Dist. Sangli 415 305.

(OA No.261/2023)

Page 2 of 11

[ANIL]

Mrs. Gangubai Gautam Gurav R/at Math Parisar, At & Post Hanmant Wadiye, Taluka Kadegaon, District Sangli 415 305. … Defendants

¶24

APPEARANCES

¶25

For the Applicant Advocate - VSSP SARMA For the Defendants Ex-parte.

¶26

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –9,16,84,090/-. JUDGMENT (Delivered on 26^th March, 2026)

¶27

The Applicant Bank has filed present application for recovery of Rs.9,16,84,090/- for Cash Credit Account No.50329033861 with future interest @13.05% per annum with monthly rests till complete realization of the said amount and a recovery certificate to that effect against the defendants.

¶28

Brief facts of the application are as under:-

¶29

The Applicant Bank states that Defendant No.1 has been registered as a Multi-State Cooperative Society and approached the applicant in the year 2016 with a request for sanction of Cash Credit Facility of Rs.3 Crore for the of purpose Society’s working capital requirements.

(OA No.261/2023)

Page 3 of 11

[ANIL]

Defendant Nos.2 to 8 requested for sanction of the said credit facility offering themselves to stand as guarantors for the repayment of the said facility.

¶34

The Applicant Bank considered the request of the Defendants and sanctioned Cash Credit Facility for amount of Rs.3 Crores on 29.03.2016, for its working capital requirements in milk production/processing/ marketing business and conveyed the same to Defendant No.1, on certain terms and conditions as mentioned in Para No.5.5 of the Original Application.

¶35

In order to secure the aforesaid Loan facility, the defendants have executed all the loan and security documents on 31.03.2016 in the capacity of borrower as set out in Para No.5.6 of the Original Application in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶36

Defendant No.3 has created mortgage charge on 29.07.2016 by depositing title deeds and by way of equitable mortgage in respect of his immovable properties i.e.

¶37

(i)- Equitable Mortgage over Plot Nos.20,21,22,23, 29,42,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62 Khanapur S.No.40(P), Itkal Telarnagar Road, situated at village Khanapur, Taluka Tuljapur, District Osmanabad;

(OA No.261/2023)

Page 4 of 11

[ANIL]

(ii)Equitable Mortgage over Plot Nos. 24,66,67,68,69,72,73,74,75,76,77,78 Khanapur S.No.40(P), Itkal Telarnagar road, situated at Village Khanapur, Taluka Tuljapur, District Osmanabad; and

¶42

(iii)- All the piece and parcel of Flat No.7 on 2^nd floor area 493.56 sq. ft. i.e. 45.87 sq. mtrs. + Terrace area 112.23 sq. ft. i.e. 10.43 sq. mtrs. + one Covered Car Parking + 5.99% undivided share in the building “Heramb Residency Apartment Condominium” in plot No.61, situated at Chikhli, Taluka Haveli, District Pune within the limits of Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority and within the jurisdiction of Sub Registrar Haveli No.14, Pune, more particularly described in Para No.5.7 of the Original Application.

¶43

Defendant No.1 again approached the applicant bank on 20.03.2017 and requested to review and enhancement of existing credit limit of Rs.3 Cr. to Rs.5 Cr. The applicant bank considered the request of Defendant No.1 and reviewed and enhanced existing limit of Cash Credit from Rs.3Cr. to Rs.5Cr. on 29.03.2017 for working capital requirements of milk production business and conveyed the same to Defendant.

(OA No.261/2023)

Page 5 of 11

[ANIL]

Defendant No.3 also extended mortgage charge on 29.03.2017 by way of equitable mortgage in respect of his immovable properties mentioned in Para No.5.7 of the Original Application.

¶48

Defendant No.1 again approached the applicant bank and requested for review and enhancement of existing Credit limit of Rs.5 Cr. to Rs.7.5 Cr. Defendant Nos.2 to 8 requested for sanction of the said enhancement offering themselves to stand as guarantors for the repayment of the said facility.

¶49

The applicant bank considered the request of Defendant No.1 and reviewed and enhanced existing limit of Cash Credit from Rs.5 Cr.to Rs.7.5 Cr. on 27.04.2018 for working capital requirements of milk production business and conveyed the same to Defendant.

¶50

Defendant No.3 also created mortgage of his immovable properties i.e. all the piece and parcel of land comprising of plot No.1 to 17 collectively admeasuring 2216.08 Sq. Mtrs. out of sanction layout of land admeasuring 01H 21R assess for Rs.01 Paise 43, bearing Gat No.621/1 from village Kumbhari, Taluka South Solapur, District Solapur, more particularly mentioned in Para No.5.15 (iv) of the Original Application.

(OA No.261/2023)

Page 6 of 11

[ANIL]

Defendant No.2 offered properties by creating mortgage on 01.06.2018 of his immovable properties i.e. all the piece and parcel of land comprising of plot No.1 to 7 and Plot Nos.10 to 12 collectively admeasuring 1769.13 Sq. Mtrs. out of sanction layout of land admeasuring 01H 65R assess for Rs.00 Paise 65, bearing Gat No.40 from village Khanapur, Taluka Tuljapur, District Osmanabad, more particularly mentioned in Para No.5.15 of the Original Application.

¶55

The Applicant Bank contended that Defendant No.1 availed the aforesaid credit facility and utilized the amount from the applicant bank. Defendants did not operate the cash credit account regularly and also did not service the interest in the Cash Credit account as per sanction terms. Therefore, Cash Credit Account of the defendant has been classified as NPA on 01.02.2020 as per Reserve Bank of India guidelines. The applicant bank, thereafter, send demand notice through its advocate to the defendants on 07.04.2022 by RPAD demanding to repay the dues of the applicant in the cash credit account. Despite notice, the defendants failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the Applicant Bank.

¶56

Hence, this application is filed.

(OA No.261/2023)

Page 7 of 11

[ANIL]

The defendants failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte as per order dated 07.08.2025 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶61

The Applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit (Exhibit-6) of Saurabh Arora, Senior Manager, and produced on record the photocopies/ Original Loan Transaction documents at Annexures - AW-1 to AW-44 alongwith list (Exh.9), which corroborates the case of the Applicant Bank.

¶62

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

¶63

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.

¶64

The Applicant Bank has claimed future interest @13.05% p. a. for Cash Credit Facility. I am of the opinion that the interest rate claimed by the Applicant Bank would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

(OA No.261/2023)

Page 8 of 11

[ANIL]

10. Hence, I pass following order:-

¶69

ORDER

¶70

(A) Original Application No.261/2023 is allowed with costs.

¶71

(B) Defendant Nos.1 to 8 either jointly and severally shall pay to the Applicant Bank an amount of Rs.9,16,84,090/- (Rupees Nine Crore Sixteen Lakhs Eighty-Four Thousand Ninety only) towards Cash Credit Loan Account No. 50329033861 with future interest @9% p.a. (Simple) respectively from the date of filing of Original Application i.e.26.05.2022 till payment /realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶72

(C) The adjudicated amount is secured by the defendants in favour of applicant bank by Mortgaging immovable properties i.e. -

¶73

(i)- Equitable Mortgage over Plot Nos. 20,21,22,23,29,42,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54, 55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62 Khanapur S.No.40(P), Itkal Telarnagar Road, situated at village Khanapur, Taluka Tuljapur, District Osmanabad;

¶74

(ii)- Equitable Mortgage over Plot Nos. 24,66,67,68,69,72,73,74,75,76,77,78 Khanapur S.No.40(P), Itkal Telarnagar road, situated at

(OA No.261/2023)

Page 9 of 11

[ANIL]

Village Khanapur, Taluka Tuljapur, District Osmanabad; and

¶79

¶80

(iv)- All the piece and parcel of land comprising of plot No.1 to 17 collectively admeasuring 2216.08 Sq. Mtrs. out of sanction layout of land admeasuring 01H 21R assess for Rs.01 Paise 43, bearing Gat No.621/1 from village Kumbhari, Taluka South Solapur, District Solapur; and

¶81

(v)- all the piece and parcel of land comprising of plot No.1 to 7 and Plot Nos.10 to 12 collectively admeasuring 1769.13 Sq. Mtrs. out of sanction layout of land admeasuring 01H 65R assess for Rs.00 Paise 65, bearing Gat No.40 from village Khanapur, Taluka Tuljapur, District Osmanabad, more particularly described in the Original Application.

(OA No.261/2023)

Page 10 of 11

[ANIL]

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

¶86

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶87

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

¶88

Sd/(Dilip G. Murumkar) Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶89

Place : Pune Date: 26.03.2026

¶90

(OA No.261/2023)

¶91

Page 11 of 11

¶92

[ANIL]

Indian Bank v. Krantisinh Nana Patil Multistate Dudh Utpadak and Prakriya Sangh Limited Knpmdupsl

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. Krantisinh Nana Patil Multistate Dudh Utpadak and Prakriya Sangh Limited Knpmdupsl

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 (Corporation Bank) versus Santosh Birje

Canara Bank versus Somnath Shirke

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Morya Enterprises Prop Mr. Dipak Gautam Jagtap

Canara Bank versus Shubhangi Rakshe

Punjab National Bank versus M/s M K Auto Components

Idbi Bank versus Murad