Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Govind Garden Mangal Karyalay

DRT17 Feb 2026OA/346/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Punjab National Bank for the recovery of Rs. 49,79,320/- along with future interest from the borrower and guarantors who failed to repay a sanctioned overdraft facility and neglected to honor a legal notice.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 49,79,320/- plus future interest at 12% p.a. (simple); entitlement to sell mortgaged property; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Punjab National Bank versus Govind Garden Mangal… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 27.06.2022 Registered on: 07.08.2022 Decided on: 17.02.2026 Duration: Y M D 03 07 20

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 346/2022

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 49,79,320/-

¶4

Punjab National Bank,

¶5

A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970, having its Head Office at Plot No. 4, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075, and one of its Branch Ghogargaon , Tal. Srigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar - 413725 through its Attorney Mr. Rahul Nathaji Potphode .

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. Govind Garden Mangal Karyalay, Through its Proprietor, Mrs. Surekha W/o. Hanuman Janjire At Kasari, Post Kada Karkhana, Tal. Ashti. Dist. Beed-414203.

¶9

2. Mrs. Surekha W/o. Hanuman Janjire Age: 43 years, Occ.: Business, R/o.: At Gut No. 39, Dhanora Road, Village Dhangarwadi (Pimpala). Tal. Ashti,

[AMBADAS]

(OA No.346/2022)

Page 1 of 8

Dist. Beed-414203.

3. Hanumant Raosaheb Janjire, Age: 44 years, Occ.: Business, R/o.: House No. 72, At Ruikhel, Post Mandavgan, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar 413701.

¶15

…Defendants

¶16

APPEARANCES

¶17

For the Applicant For Defendants

¶18

Mr. Sameer J. Pande -Advocate Ex-parte

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Delivered on 17.02.2026

¶21

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the

¶22

recovery of a sum of Rs. 49,79,320/- (Rupees Forty Nine Lacs, Seventy Nine Thousand, Three Hundred and Twenty only), along with future interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 27.06.2022, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶23

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶24

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendant No. 1 had approached and requested the Applicant Bank for Overdraft

(OA No.346/2022)

Page 2 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Facility. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the Defendant, the Applicant Bank sanctioned Overdraft Facility of

¶29

Rs. 50,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 31.08.2018 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for the aforesaid loan was @ 10.70% 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.

¶30

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendant executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letter, letter of undertaking, registered mortgage deed bearing daybook No. 3207/2018 dated 03.09.2018. Additionally defendant No. 2 & 3 stood as guarantors for defendant No. 1 and executed deed of guarantee dated 03.09.2018 in favour of the Applicant Bank

¶31

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendants executed mortgage deed

(OA No.346/2022)

Page 3 of 8

[AMBADAS]

bearing daybook No. 3207/2018 dated 03.09.2018 in favour of

¶36

the Applicant Bank. The mortgage was created in respect of the following property:

¶37

All that piece and parcel of N.A. Land admeasuring 4,000 Square Meter, Part of Survey No. 39 of village Dhangarwadi (Pimpla), on Dhanora Road, Tal. Ashti. Dist. Beed, owned and possessed by defendant No. 2,which is bounded as under: East: Part of Survey No. 39, South: 12.0 M. Service Road then 24 M. Dhanora Road, West: Part of Survey No. 39, North: Part of Survey No. 39.

¶38

The applicant bank contended that the defendants have failed to keep their promise and commitments agreed by them with 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. Therefore on 21.04.2022 the

(OA No.346/2022)

Page 4 of 8

[AMBADAS]

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.

¶43

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were served through court commissioner. Hence, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 16.04.2025.

¶44

The applicant Bank has filed Evidence Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Mr. Rahul s/o. Nathaji Potphode, Power of Attorney Holder of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Annexure A-1 to A-16 along with list of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶45

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

¶46

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

(OA No.346/2022)

Page 5 of 8

[AMBADAS]

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

¶51

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

¶52

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @15% p. a. from the date of filing i.e. 27.06.2022 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 @ 12% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶53

ORDER

¶54

(A) Original Application No. 346/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶55

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 49,79,320/- (Rupees Forty Nine Lacs, Seventy Nine Thousand, Three Hundred and

¶56

Twenty only), along with future interest @ 12% per

(OA No.346/2022)

Page 6 of 8

[AMBADAS]

annum (simple) from the date of filing of the O.A. i.e. 27.06.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount

¶61

mentioned in this operative order.

¶62

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the mortgage of the following immovable property vide document at Annexure A-5 in list of documents Exh. 5.

¶63

¶64

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

(OA No.346/2022)

Page 7 of 8

[AMBADAS]

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶69

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

¶70

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶71

Sd/-

¶72

Pronounced in open court. (Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Place: Aurangabad Presiding Officer Date:.17.02.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶73

(OA No.346/2022)

¶74

Page 8 of 8

¶75

[AMBADAS]

Punjab National Bank v. Govind Garden Mangal Karyalay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Govind Garden Mangal Karyalay

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

State Bank of India versus Gangadhar S/o Tukaram Raut

Bank of India versus Sudhakar Jotiram Karad

Punjab National Bank versus Atmaramgiri Maharaj Sahakari Thibak Sinchan Yojana

State Bank of India versus M/S sanshu Green Corn Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Devidas Baban Wable

Malhar Petroleum versus Shankar Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd.