Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sundarrao Madhavrao Kadam (Deceased)

DRT7 Jan 2026OA/291/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed a recovery application filed by Union Bank of India against borrowers and legal heirs. The Court held the bank entitled to the principal amount plus future interest at 9% p.a. The decree is secured by registered mortgages over the borrowers' agricultural land.

What did the court decide?

The defendants were directed to jointly and severally pay the sum of Rs. 29,27,935/- with future interest at 9% per annum simple from 20.09.2023, secured by the mortgaged properties, with a Recovery C

Union Bank of India versus Sundarrao Madhavrao… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 20.09.2023 Registered on: 23.04.2024 Decided on: 07.01.2026 Duration: Y M D 02 03 17

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 291/2024

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 29,27,935/-

¶4

Union Bank of India,

¶5

A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970, Having its Registered office at 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 & having branches amongst the other places at Station Road, Dist. Ahmednagar and having its Asset Recovery Branch (ARB), at Plot No. 3, 1^st Floor, Sahakar Colony, Shahanoorwadi, Aurangabad, through its Power of Attorney, Mr. Abhaykumar Dattatray Baviskar, (Chief Manager), Age: 38 years, Occ.: Service, R/o. Plot No. 3, 1^st Floor, Sahakar Colony, Shahnoorwadi, Aurangabad 431005.

… Applicant

Versus

(OA No.291/2024)

Page 1 of 10

[N. Jahagirdar]

1. Mr. Sundarrao Madhavrao Kadam (deceased) Through it’s Legal heirs, i) Smt. Krushnabai Sundarrao Kadam Age: Major, Occ.: Agri., R/o.: At Post Suregaon, Tq. Kopergaon, Dist. Ahmednagar-423 602. ii) Bhausaheb Sundarrao Kadam Age: Major, Occ.: Agri., R/o.: At Post Suregaon, Tq. Kopergaon, Dist. Ahmednagar-423 602. iii) Mr. Sanjay Sundarrao Kadam Age: Major, Occ.: Agri., R/o.: At Post Suregaon, Tq. Kopergaon, Dist. Ahmednagar-423 602. iv) Mrs. Usha Raosaheb Deshmukh Age: Major, Occ.: Agri., R/o.: At Post Suregaon, Tq. Kopergaon, Dist. Ahmednagar-423 602. v) Mrs. Shashikala Babanrao Dalvi Age: Major, Occ.: Agri., R/o.: At Post Suregaon, Tq. Kopergaon, Dist. Ahmednagar-423 602. vi) Mrs. Nillima Rajendra Nimbalkar Age: Major, Occ.: Agri., R/o.: At Post Suregaon, Tq. Kopergaon, Dist. Ahmednagar-423 602.

¶12

2. Mr. Deepak Bhausaheb Kadam

¶13

Age: Major, Occ.: Agri., R/o.: At Post Suregaon, Tq. Kopergaon, Dist. Ahmednagar-423 602.

¶14

3. Mr. Bhausaheb Sundarrao Kadam

¶15

Age: Major, Occ.: Agri.,

(OA No.291/2024)

Page 2 of 10

[N. Jahagirdar]

R/o.: At Post Suregaon, Tq. Kopergaon, Dist. Ahmednagar-423 602.

¶20

4. Mr. Kailas Dattatray Kadam Age: Major, Occ.: Agri., R/o.: At Post Suregaon, Tq. Kopergaon, …Defendants Dist. Ahmednagar-423 602.

¶21

APPEARANCES

¶22

For the Applicant For the Defendant No. 2 For Defendant No. 1,3 & 4

¶23

Mr. K. D. Pande –Advocate Mr. S.D. Bhagwat- Advocate

¶24

Ex-parte

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Delivered on 07.01.2026

¶27

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 29,27,935/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs, Twenty Seven Thousand, Nine Hundred and Thirty Five only), along with future interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 20.09.2023, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶28

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶29

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendant No. 1 (Now

(OA No.291/2024)

Page 3 of 10

[N. Jahagirdar]

deceased) & Defendant No.2 approached and requested the Applicant Bank for Term loan facility. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the Defendants, the Applicant Bank sanctioned Term loan facility of Rs. 14,35,000/- vide sanction letter dated 14.10.2014 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for the aforesaid loan was @12.75% p.a. with half yearly rests. The Defendants also agreed to pay additional interest @ 2% by way of liquidated damages in the event of any default in repayment.

¶34

¶35

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendant No. 1

¶36

& 2 executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letter, letter of undertaking, hypothecation agreement, demand promissory note, registered declaration (Anusuchi) u/s. 5 (1) of the Maharashtra Provision of Facilities for Agriculture Credit by Banks Act, 1974 dated 18.12.2014 etc., in favour of the applicant bank.

(OA No.291/2024)

Page 4 of 10

[N. Jahagirdar]

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendants created first charge over their immovable property by executing registered declaration (Anusuchi) u/s. 5 (1) of the Maharashtra Provision of Facilities for Agriculture Credit by Banks Act, 1974 dated 18.12.2014 in favour of the Applicant Bank. The mortgage was created in respect of the following properties-

¶41

i) All that piece and parcel of agricultural land admeasuring 1 H 21 R, out of Gut No. 398, situated at Village Suregaon, Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar, which is bounded as under: East: Gut No. 400, West: Shiv, South: Gut No. 396, North: Gut No. 399.

¶42

ii) All that piece and parcel of agricultural land admeasuring 1 H 12 R, out of Gut No. 407, situated at Village Suregaon, Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar, which is bounded as under: East: Gut No. 414, West: Gut No. 401, 402, 403, South: Gut No. 408, North: Gut No. 405.

¶43

The applicant bank contended that the defendants have failed to keep their promise and commitments agreed by them with

(OA No.291/2024)

Page 5 of 10

[N. Jahagirdar]

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 31.03.2023. Therefore, on 27.07.2023 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.

¶48

The LR’s of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 3 to 4 failed to appear in matter though they were served through Court Commissioner. Hence, the LR’s of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 3 to 4 were proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 17.09.2025.

(OA No.291/2024)

Page 6 of 10

[N. Jahagirdar]

The Defendant No.2 filed Written Statement, marked “A” and contested the application on the grounds that the applicant bank has debited and charged exorbitant rate of interest, to which the bank is not entitled. The applicant bank has not maintained the account as per RBI norms. The person, who had availed the loan facility, died on 22.06.2018. His legal heirs are facing financial difficulty and the bank has not given benefit of insurance scheme to the legal heirs of the deceased. The present outstanding dues are based on false presumptions and assumptions. The defendant No.2 denied all other allegations of the application and took legal pleas regarding maintainability, cause of action and limitation.

¶53

The applicant bank filed the rejoinder to the Written statement filed by defendant No.2 and again reasserted its claim and controverted the allegations made in the Written Statement.

¶54

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant bank as well as the learned counsel for the defendant No.2 and gone through the record.

(OA No.291/2024)

Page 7 of 10

[N. Jahagirdar]

It may be noted here that defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 failed to appear and they have not contested the application. Further, the defendant No.2 has filed Written Statement, but in support of allegations, even reply-affidavit has not been filed. No documentary evidence has been produced by the defendant No.2 on record. The applicant bank, in order to prove its case, filed Claim Affidavit of evidence Exhibit-4 of Abhaykumar Dattatray Baviskar, Chief Manager of the applicant bank, who has fully supported the pleas taken in the application by way of sworn affidavit and further produced original documents as Exhibits-A1 to A-16 along with list of documents Exhibit-5. This evidence of the applicant cannot be rebutted only by way of filing Written Statement by the defendant No.2. As stated above, the defendant No.2, in the Written Statement, has taken only legal pleas regarding maintainability, cause of action and limitation, but he failed to file any sworn affidavit before this Tribunal as to in which manner, the present Original Application is barred by limitation, how the applicant bank has no cause of action and in which manner, the present Original Application is not

(OA No.291/2024)

Page 8 of 10

[N. Jahagirdar]

maintainable. Therefore, upon consideration of the evidence on record led by the applicant bank, this Tribunal is of the opinion that it is established that the applicant bank is entitled for the reliefs claimed in this application.

¶63

The applicant Bank has claimed charge over immovable properties of the borrowers which are mortgaged in favour of the applicant bank.

¶64

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @12.75% p. a. on term loan from the date of filing i.e. 20.09.2023 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 @ 9% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶65

In the result, I pass the following order:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

(A) Original Application No. 291/2024 is allowed with

costs.

(OA No.291/2024)

Page 9 of 10

[N. Jahagirdar]

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 29,27,935/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs, Twenty Seven Thousand, Nine Hundred and Thirty Five only), along with future interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 20.09.2023 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶73

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the mortgage of the following immovable properties. Vide registered declaration (Anusuchi) u/s. 5 (1) of the Maharashtra Provision of Facilities for Agriculture Credit by Banks Act, 1974 dated 18.12.2014 at Exh. A-9 in the list of documents Exh. 5.

¶74

i) All that piece and parcel of agricultural land admeasuring 1 H 21 R, out of Gut No. 398, situated at Village Suregaon, Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar, which is bounded as under:

¶75

East: Gut No. 400, West: Shiv, South: Gut No. 396, North: Gut No. 399.

(OA No.291/2024)

Page 10 of 10

[N. Jahagirdar]

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

¶81

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶82

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

¶83

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶84

Sd/-

¶85

Pronounced in open court. (Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Place: Aurangabad Presiding Officer Date: 07.01.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶86

(OA No.291/2024)

¶87

Page 11 of 10

¶88

[N. Jahagirdar]

Union Bank of India v. Sundarrao Madhavrao Kadam (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sundarrao Madhavrao Kadam (Deceased)

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

Canara Bank versus M/S Mauli Agriclinic and Business Centre

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S Satyam Trading Company

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Chandulal Naval Patil

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sunita Sharad Bhadane

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mrs. Vidya Santosh Zalte

Maharastra Gramin Bank versus M/s Dnyanai Agro Processing Centre