Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Kamal Bulk Carriers

DRT15 Jun 2026OA/295/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application filed by Bank of Baroda for recovery of dues totaling Rs. 35,25,812 along with future interest at 9% per annum from Defendant M/s. Kamal Bulk Carriers, who appeared ex-parte. The decree includes charge over hypothecated assets and issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 35,25,812 with 9% p.a. future interest and sale of hypothecated assets to recover dues.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Kamal Bulk Carriers — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 26.03.2025 Registered on: 22.05.2025 Decided on: 15.06.2026 Duration: Y M D 01 02 19

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 295/2025

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 35,25,812/-

¶4

Bank of Baroda ,

¶5

A Body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act V, 1970 having its Local Head office at Mandavi, Baroda and one of its Branch at Stressed Assets Recovery Branch and acting through its power of Attorney Holder and one of its Chief Manager Mr. Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, Age: 52 years, Occupation: Service as chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Regional Office, Plot No. 8, Town Centre Connaught place N-5, CIDCO. Aurangabad and having authority to file the application which includes the authority to sign and verify the application.

… Applicant

Versus

(OA No.295/2025)

Page 1 of 7

[AMBADAS]

M/s. Kamal Bulk Carriers, Through its Prop. Mrs. Manish Nitesh Sathe, Age: 38 Years, Occ.: Business, Plot No. 6, Naiku Nagar, Vadar Wadi, Bhingar, Ahilyanagar (Ahmednagar) 414002 …Defendant

¶12

APPEARANCES

¶13

For the Applicant Mr. Kulkarni Vivek B. -Advocate For Defendant Ex-parte

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

Delivered on 15.06.2026

¶16

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 35,25,812/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs, Twenty Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Twelve only), along with future interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 26.03.2025, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendant.

¶17

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶18

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendant had approached and requested the Applicant Bank for financial assistance. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the Defendant, the

(OA No.295/2025)

Page 2 of 7

[AMBADAS]

Applicant Bank Sanctioned Term loan facility of Rs. 39,39,000/-,

¶23

Clean Overdraft of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Bank Guarantee of Rs.

¶24

4,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 07.06.2019 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for the aforesaid loan facility was @10.65% p.a. with monthly rests. The Defendant also agreed to pay additional interest @2% by way of liquidated damages in the event of any default in repayment.

¶25

Thereafter, the Defendant had again approached and requested the Applicant Bank for financial assistance. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the Defendant, the Applicant Bank sanctioned Additional Working Capital Term loan of Rs. 8,00,000/-, vide sanction letter dated 07.06.2019 on certain terms and conditions.

¶26

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendant executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letter, letter of sole proprietorship,

(OA No.295/2025)

Page 3 of 7

[AMBADAS]

hypothecation agreement, demand promissory note, letter of undertaking, etc., in favour of the Applicant Bank

¶31

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendant executed hypothecation agreement thereby hypothecating vehicle and assets in favor of the applicant bank.

¶32

The applicant bank contended that the defendant has failed to keep her promise and commitments agreed by her with regard to due repayment of the loan amount. The defendant 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 defendant to pay with the agreed rate of interest thereon, but the defendant failed and neglected to pay the same. The loan account of the defendant became irregular and classified as NPA on 30.03.2021. Therefore, on 10.01.2025 the applicant bank issued legal notice to the defendant through their

(OA No.295/2025)

Page 4 of 7

[AMBADAS]

advocate. Despite service of Notices, the defendant failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶37

The defendant failed to appear in matter though she was served through RPAD. Hence, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 18.03.2026.

¶38

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Mr. Pradeep Kumar Shrivastava, Chief Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Annexure A-1 to A-22 along with list of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶39

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

¶40

Since the defendant failed to appear and did not contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted

(OA No.295/2025)

Page 5 of 7

[AMBADAS]

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

¶45

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

¶46

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @10.65% p.a. on from the date of filing i.e. 26.03.2025 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) on outstanding amount, it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶47

ORDER

¶48

(A) Original Application No. 295/2025 is allowed with costs.

¶49

(B) The defendant shall pay to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 35,25,812/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs, Twenty Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Twelve only), along with future interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date

(OA No.295/2025)

Page 6 of 7

[AMBADAS]

of filing of the Original Application i.e. 26.03.2025 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶54

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the hypothecation of vehicle and assets vide documents at Annexure A-15 & A-19 in list of documents Exh. 5.

¶55

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

¶56

assets/ articles/goods/vehicles etc., to recover its dues.

¶57

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶58

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

¶59

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

Pronounced in open court. Place: Aurangabad Date: 15.06.2026

¶62

(Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶63

(OA No.295/2025)

¶64

Page 7 of 7

¶65

[AMBADAS]

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Kamal Bulk Carriers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Kamal Bulk Carriers

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus Gajendra Sharadchanda Takate

Axis Bank versus Sandip Appasaheb Dudhale

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/s. Riddhi Siddhi Trading Company

State Bank of India versus Mr. Chandrashekhar Rangnath Shinde

Axis Bank Limited versus Kiran Bharatrao Kharat

Punjab National Bank versus Suman W/o Gangadhar Pandule