Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mrs Tejashri Alias Tejaswini Vikram Borate

DRT4 Feb 2026OA/278/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of loan dues and interest, adjusting the interest rate to 9% per annum, securing the debt on mortgaged property, and issuing a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.47,17,000/- with future interest at 9% per annum; sale of mortgaged shop; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus Mrs Tejashri Alias Tejaswini… — Intellectual Property | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on .. 01.02.2022 Registered on .. 18.02.2023 Decided on .. 04.02.2026 Duration .. Y—M—D 04--00--03

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 278/2023.

¶3

State Bank of India, A Banking Company incorporated under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970, having its Head Office at 8^th floor, State Bank Bhavan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 and its branch at – Godoli, District Satara.

¶4

… Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mrs. Tejashri alias Tejaswini Vikram Borate,

¶7

At Post Budh, Taluka Khatav, District Satara.

¶8

Appearances :-

¶9

For Applicant Adv Pooja Mali i/b M.V. Kini & Co. For Defendant Ex parte.

¶10

Total Claim Amount – Rs.47,17,000/-

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

(Delivered on 04^th February, 2026)

¶13

Sanap ( OA No. 278/2023 ) 1 of 5

¶14

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.47,17,000/- together with future interest @12% 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

As per the loan application dated 02.05.2016 of the defendant, the applicant Bank sanctioned the Term loan facility of Rs.30,00,000/- to the defendant vide Sanction Letter dated 16.05.2016.

¶17

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant has executed necessary loan and security documents on 16.05.2016 in favour of the applicant Bank. The defendant has also executed equitable mortgage by way of deposit of title deeds vide memorandum dated 16.05.2016 in favour of the applicant Bank in respect of all the piece and parcel of Shop No. 2, Ground floor admeasuring 51.57 square meters in the building Adarsh Surya, S. No. 87/A8+9, Plot No. 6 and 7 at Saidapur, Taluka and District Satara.

¶18

The applicant Bank contended that the defendant committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Hence, on 28.02.2017, the

¶19

Sanap ( OA No. 278/2023 ) 2 of 5

¶20

applicant Bank has classified the account of the defendant as Non-Performing Asset in accordance with guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Thereafter, on 27.01.2022, 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.

¶21

Hence, this application is filed.

¶22

The defendant failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against the defendant as per Order dated 18.06.2025 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶23

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Mahesh Laxman Dalvi, Regional Manager and Authorized Signatory of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1 to AW-16 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

Sanap ( OA No. 278/2023 ) 3 of 5

¶27

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

¶28

The applicant Bank has claimed relief in respect of hypothecated assets. However, there is no detailed description with respect to the hypothecated assets, therefore, the relief in terms of hypothecated assets cannot be granted.

¶29

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @12% 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.

¶30

Hence, I pass the following order.

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

A} Original Application No. 278/2023 is allowed with costs.

¶33

B} The defendant shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.47,17,000/- (Rupees Forty Seven Lakh Seventeen Thousand only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 01.02.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶34

Sanap ( OA No. 278/2023 ) 4 of 5

¶35

C} The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage in respect of all the piece and parcel of Shop No. 2, Ground floor admeasuring 51.57 square meters in the building Adarsh Surya, S. No. 87/A8+9, Plot No. 6 and 7 at Saidapur, Taluka and District Satara, more particularly described in the Schedule B of the Original Application.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

Sd/( Dilip G. Murumkar ) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 04.02.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶39

Sanap ( OA No. 278/2023 ) 5 of 5

State Bank of India v. Mrs Tejashri Alias Tejaswini Vikram Borate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mrs Tejashri Alias Tejaswini Vikram Borate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus Suryakant

Canara Bank versus Nitin

State Bank of India versus Dhananjay Solaskar

Bank of Maharashtra versus Anil Ganpat Chavan

Union Bank of India versus Sujit Prabhakar More

Union Bank of India versus Bhaskar