Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Narendra Gokhale

DRT6 Apr 2026OA/338/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application filed by Bank of Baroda for recovery of a term loan, the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Pune, allowed the application. The defendants failed to appear. The Court directed the defendants to pay the principal amount along with future interest at 9% per annum, adjudicated mortgaged properties, and issued a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 24,51,412/- plus future interest at 9% p.a.; immovable property attached; recovery certificate issued; directions to sell attached assets.

Bank of Baroda versus Narendra Gokhale — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 10.07.2021 Registered on: 25.04.2022 Decided on: 06.04.2026 Duration: Y M D 04 08 26

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.338/2022.

¶3

Bank of Baroda ,

¶4

A Nationalized Bank having its Head Office at Mandavi, Baroda, State of Gujrat and one of its branches at Bank of Baroda, Maruti Road, Sangli, Taluka Miraj, District Sangli-416 416.

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mr. Narendra Vishnu Gokhale Age 35 years, Occ.:- Business

¶7

… Applicant

¶8

Late Vishnu Govind Gokhale

¶9

Deceased – Through Legal Heirs - A) Smt. Vrushali Vishnu Gokhale B) Mr. Narendra Vishnu Gokhale Both R/at – 669/B, Gokhale Wada, … Defendants Khadilkar Galli, Gaobhag, Sangli-416416.

¶10

APPEARANCES

¶11

For the Applicant Mr. B. S. Jadhav - Advocate For the Defendants Ex-parte.

¶12

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 24,51,412/-

¶13

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 6^th April, 2026)

(OA No.338/2022)

Page 1 of 5

[ANIL]

The Applicant Bank has filed present Application for recovery of Rs.24,51,412/- [Rupees Twenty-Four Lakhs Fifty-One Thousand Four Hundred Twelve only] as on 02.06.2021 with future interest @12.95% p.a. with monthly rests till actual realization of the entire amount from the defendants.

¶18

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶19

Defendant No.1 approached the applicant bank on 26.09.2007 for availing Term Loan of Rs.3,20,000/- for purchasing vehicle i.e. TATA ACE AT Euro for his business. The applicant bank has sanctioned Rs.3,20,000/- on 26.09.2007 to defendant No.1, on certain terms and conditions.

¶20

Defendants have executed the loan transaction and security documents in favour of the applicant bank as set out in Para No.5.7 of the Original Application.

¶21

Defendant No.1 signed and executed Hypothecation Agreement dated 26.09.2007 in respect of Term Loan of Rs.3,20,000/- and hypothecated vehicle TATA ACE AT RTO Registration No. MH10218213.

¶22

Defendant No.2 died leaving behind legal heirs i.e. Defendant No.2A and Defendant No.2B and the estate more particularly described as under –

¶23

(i)- All those piece and parcel of Gaonbhag C.S.No.669/1B admeasuring 60.2 sq. mtrs. situated at Sangli, Taluka Miraj, District Sangli;

¶24

(ii)- All those piece and parcel of Gaonbhag C.S.No.669/B admeasuring 38.5 sq. mtrs. situated at Sangli, Taluka Miraj, District Sangli;

¶25

(iii)- All those piece and parcel of area admeasuring 56.3 out of Gaonbhag C.S.No.671 admeasuring 168.1 sq. mtrs. situated at Sangli, Taluka Miraj, District Sangli, as described in Schedule-B of the Original Application.

(OA No.338/2022)

Page 2 of 5

[ANIL]

The applicant Bank further contended that defendants after availing the said loan facility have failed to repay the loan amount and thus committed breach of terms and conditions of the sanction. Due to nonpayment of amount in the said loan account, the account of the defendant was classified as NonPerforming Assets on 04.03.2009 as per the extent guidelines of Reserve Bank of India.

¶30

Thereafter, the applicant Bank issued Notice dated 20.02.2021 through Advocate Mr. B. S. Jadhav calling upon the defendants to pay outstanding amount. Despite receipt of Notice, defendants neglected to repay the outstanding dues in both the accounts.

¶31

Hence, this application is filed.

¶32

Defendants were duly served with the summons. Despite service of summons, the defendants failed to appear. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against defendants and order of ex parte hearing has been passed on 30.04.2025 below the application (Exhibit-1).

¶33

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Sunil Mahadev Sargar, Manager and Authorized Signatory, which supports the case of the applicant Bank elucidated in the application. The applicant Bank has produced on record the original loan transaction documents (Sr.Nos.AW-1/1 to AW-1/18) which corroborate the case of the applicant Bank.

¶34

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

(OA No.338/2022)

Page 3 of 5

[ANIL]

Since the defendants failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of the applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for reliefs as claimed.

¶39

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @12.95% p.a. for Term Loan account 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.[[[

¶40

Hence, I pass the following order: -

¶41

ORDER

¶42

(A) Original Application No.338/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶43

(B) Defendant Nos. 1 & 2A & 2B shall either jointly or severally pay an amount of Rs.24,51,412/- (Rupees TwentyFour Lakhs Fifty-One Thousand Four Hundred Twelve only) to the applicant bank towards Term Loan A/c No. 76160600000835 (Old A/c No.50410840027) with future interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e.10.07.2021 till full realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶44

The Liability of Defendant No. 2A & 2B is restricted to the extent of estate inherited by them from deceased Vishnu Govind Gokhale.

(OA No.338/2022)

Page 4 of 5

[ANIL]

(i)- All those piece and parcel of Gaonbhag C.S.No.669/1B admeasuring 60.2 sq. mtrs. situated at Sangli, Taluka Miraj, District Sangli;

¶50

(ii)- All those piece and parcel of Gaonbhag C.S.No.669/B admeasuring 38.5 sq. mtrs. situated at Sangli, Taluka Miraj, District Sangli;

¶51

¶52

The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by hypothecation of vehicle TATA ACE AT RTO Registration No. MH10218213.

¶53

(D) The applicant bank is entitled to sell the above mentioned mortgaged immovable properties/ hypothecated vehicle to recover its dues.

¶54

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶55

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

¶56

Place : Pune

¶57

Date : 06.04.2026

¶58

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

¶59

(OA No.338/2022)

¶60

Page 5 of 5

¶61

[ANIL]

Bank of Baroda v. Narendra Gokhale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Narendra Gokhale

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

Idbi Bank versus Murad

Punjab National Bank versus M/s M K Auto Components

Canara Bank versus Shubhangi Rakshe

Indian Overseas Bank versus Rahul

Bank of Baroda versus Mahavir Bhore

Union Bank of India versus Sonali