Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Ms Suyog Groundnut and Oil Mill Prop. Bhanudas Raghunath Bagav

DRT10 Apr 2026OA/262/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs.92,26,556/-. The tribunal considered the defendant absent and approved the principal amount with future interest at 9% p.a., ordering the sale of mortgaged land to recover dues.

What did the court decide?

Defendant to pay Rs.92,26,556/– with future interest at 9% p.a.; mortgaged property to be sold; Recovery Certificate issued.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Ms Suyog Groundnut and Oil… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on	..	15.04.2022
Registered on	..	18.02.2023
Decided on	..	10.04.2026
Duration	..	Y—M—D
		03--11--25

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 262/2023.

¶3

Bank of Maharashtra,

¶4

A Banking Company Incorporated under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act V of 1970, having its head office at ―Lokmangal‖, 1501, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411 005 and one of its branch office at – Koregaon, Satara.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s. Suyog Groundnut and Oil Mill, Prop. Bhanudas Raghunath Bagav, Age Adult, Occ. Business, R/at – CTS No. 446, GP Milkat No. 632/1, Village Jalgaon, Taluka Koregaon, District Satara 415 501.

¶8

… Defendant

¶9

Appearances :-

¶10

For Applicant Adv Varun Kulkarni i/b Adv. V.S. Tokekar. For Defendant Ex parte.

¶11

Total Claim Amount – Rs.92,26,556/-

¶12

Sanap ( OA No. 262/2023 ) 1 of 6

¶13

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 10^th April, 2026)

¶14

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.92,26,556/- together with future interest @9.75% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendant.

¶15

Brief facts of the application are as under :-

¶16

The defendant approached the applicant Bank requesting Cash Credit facility and Term Loan facility for his business purpose as Working Capital. Accordingly, the applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed the Cash Credit facility of Rs.4,00,000/- and Term loan facility of Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendant vide Sanction Letter dated 01.12.2012.

¶17

Thereafter, on the request of the defendant, the applicant Bank sanctioned and enhanced the Cash Credit facility of Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- and Term loan facility of Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.4,75,000/- on 11.11.2013.

¶18

Thereafter, again on the request of the defendant, the applicant Bank sanctioned and enhanced the Cash Credit facility to Rs.25,00,000/- and Term loan facility of Rs.5,00,000/- on 30.06.2017. And thereafter again on the request of the defendant, the applicant Bank enhanced the

¶19

Sanap ( OA No. 262/2023 ) 2 of 6

¶20

Cash Credit facility from Rs.25,00,000/- to Rs.35,00,000/12.09.2018.

¶21

Thereafter, the defendant again approached the applicant Bank for enhancement of existing cash credit facility. On consideration request of the defendant, the applicant Bank sanctioned and enhanced the Cash Credit facility of Rs.35,00,000/- to Rs.70,00,000/- vide Sanction Letter dated 30.08.2019.

¶22

The applicant Bank further submitted that due to financial difficulty due to Covid-19, as per application dated 10.06.2020 of the defendant, the applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed the Term Loan facility of Rs.10,80,000/- on 23.06.2020 to the defendant under the Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme (ECLGS).

¶23

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendant has executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank. The defendant has also executed deed of hypothecation and simple mortgage in favour of the applicant Bank in respect of all that piece and parcel of land bearing CTS/S No. 446 and Milkhat No. 632/1 area admeasuring 8700 square feet situated at village Jalgaon, Taluka Koregaon, District Satara.

¶24

Sanap ( OA No. 262/2023 ) 3 of 6

¶25

The applicant Bank contended that the defendant committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Therefore, on 02.01.2022, the applicant Bank has classified the account of the defendant as Non-Performing Asset in accordance with guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Thereafter, on 08.04.2022, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to the defendant. Despite service of Notice, the defendant failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶26

The defendant failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against the defendant as per Order dated 06.06.2025 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶27

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Sumant Kumar, Chief Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1-1 to AW-1-43 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶28

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

¶29

Since the defendant failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of the

¶30

Sanap ( OA No. 262/2023 ) 4 of 6

¶31

applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for reliefs as claimed.

¶32

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @9.75% per annum. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶33

Hence, I pass the following order.

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

A} Original Application No. 262/2023 is allowed with costs.

¶36

B} The defendant shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.92,26,556/- (Rupees Ninety Two Lakh Twenty Six Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Six only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 15.04.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶37

C} The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage in respect of all that piece and parcel of land bearing CTS/S No. 446 and Milkhat No. 632/1 area admeasuring 8700 square feet situated at village Jalgaon, Taluka Koregaon, District Satara, more particularly described in the Schedule of the Original Application.

¶38

Sanap ( OA No. 262/2023 ) 5 of 6

¶39

D} The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged property to recover its dues.

¶40

E} Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶41

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

¶42

Sd/( Dilip G. Murumkar ) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 10.04.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶43

Sanap ( OA No. 262/2023 ) 6 of 6

Bank of Maharashtra v. Ms Suyog Groundnut and Oil Mill Prop. Bhanudas Raghunath Bagav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Ms Suyog Groundnut and Oil Mill Prop. Bhanudas Raghunath Bagav

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 Sonali

Bank of Baroda versus Mahavir Bhore

Indian Overseas Bank versus Rahul

Hdfc Bank versus Siddhraj Textiles Prop. Mr. Surendra Diwate

Bank of Maharashtra versus Satish

Union Bank of India versus Ms Shambhu Mahadev Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd.