Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Chetan Kachru Jagtap

DRT24 Aug 2026OA/354/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Bank of Maharashtra for recovery of a loan amount of Rs. 1.27 crore. The tribunal noted the defendant's default, non-appearance, and upheld the claim with adjusted future interest and execution through mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 1,27,26,490/- plus future interest at 11% p.a.; sale of mortgaged properties; issue of Recovery Certificate.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Chetan Kachru Jagtap — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 08.05.2025 Registered on: 17.06.2025 Decided on: 24.08.2026 Duration: Y M D 01 03 16

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 354/2025

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 1,27,26,490/-

¶4

Bank of Maharashtra ,

¶5

A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act V of 1970, Having its Head Office at 1501, Lokmangal, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-and branch amongst other places at Recovery Branch, Zonal Office Cidco Aurangabad, Through its Chief Manager, Mr. Randhir B. Prasad, Age: 45 years, Occu: Service as Chief Manager with Bank of Maharashtra, Recovery Branch, Cidco Aurangabad. R/o.: Aurangabad.

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Chetan Kachru Jagtap

¶9

Age: Major, Occupation: Business, Prop. M/s. Yuvraj Petroleum Gut No. 40, Hatnur, Taluka Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad.

…Defendant

(OA No.354/2025)

Page 1 of 8

[AMBADAS]

APPEARANCES

For the Applicant For Defendant

¶16

Mrs. Amrita P. Johar -Advocate Ex-parte

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Delivered on 24.08.2026

¶19

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,27,26,490/- (Rupees One Crore, Twenty Seven Lacs, Twenty Six Thousand, Four Hundred and Ninety only), along with future interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 08.05.2025, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendant.

¶20

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶21

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendant had approached and requested the Applicant Bank with a request to sanction term loan facility & Cash Credit Facility. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the Defendant, the Applicant Bank Sanctioned Term loan facility of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- & Cash Credit Facility of Rs. 30,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 19.05.2021

(OA No.354/2025)

Page 2 of 8

[AMBADAS]

on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for aforesaid loan facilities was @ 9.15% 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.

¶26

Thereafter, Defendant had again approached and requested the Applicant Bank with a request to enhance the said Cash Credit Facility. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the Defendant, the Applicant Bank enhanced the Cash Credit Facility to Rs. 70,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 23.12.2023 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for aforesaid loan facility was @ 14.30% 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.

¶27

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendant executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letters, demand promissory notes,

(OA No.354/2025)

Page 3 of 8

[AMBADAS]

registered mortgage deeds bearing daybook Nos. 5797/2021 &

¶32

48/2024 dated 27.05.2021 & 02.01.2024 respectively and deeds

¶33

of hypothecation etc., in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶34

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendant executed registered mortgage deeds bearing daybook Nos. 5797/2021 & 48/2024 dated 27.05.2021 & 02.01.2024 respectively in respect of following properties:

¶35

i) All that piece and parcel of property bearing Flat No. 4, Municipal House No. G0014686, Varad Muthiya, Kotwalpura, Samrath Nagar, Aurangabad, admeasuring 70 Sq. meters, which is bounded as under:

¶36

East: Road, West: Flat No. 1, South: Nala, North: Flat No. 3.

¶37

ii) All that piece and parcel of property bearing CTS No. 47/1, Municipal House No. 4/2660/2, Vaijapur, Taluka Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad, admeasuring 111.76 Sq. meters, which is bounded as under:

¶38

East: Plot No. 11, West: Road, South: Road, North: Plot of Sunita D. Jagtap.

(OA No.354/2025)

Page 4 of 8

[AMBADAS]

The applicant bank contended that the defendant has failed to keep his promise and commitments agreed by him 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 31.03.2025. Therefore on 02.04.2025 the applicant bank issued legal notice to the defendant through their advocate. Despite service of Notices, the defendant failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶43

The defendant failed to appear in matter though he was served through paper publication. Hence, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 20.02.2026.

(OA No.354/2025)

Page 5 of 8

[AMBADAS]

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Randhir B. Prasad, Chief Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Exh. A-1to A-19 along with list of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶48

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

¶49

Since the defendant failed to appear and did not contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted evidence of the applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for the reliefs as claimed.

¶50

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

¶51

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @14.50% p.a. from the date of filing i.e. 08.05.2025 of this application till realization of the claim amount. However, considering the facts of

(OA No.354/2025)

Page 6 of 8

[AMBADAS]

the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @ 11 % per annum (simple) on outstanding amount, it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶56

ORDER

¶57

(A) Original Application No. 354/2025 is allowed with costs.

¶58

(B) The defendant shall pay to the applicant Bank a sum of 1,27,26,490/- (Rupees One Crore, Twenty Seven Lacs, Twenty Six Thousand, Four Hundred and Ninety only), along with future interest @ 11% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the O.A. i.e. 08.05.2025 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶59

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the mortgage of the following immovable properties vide documents at Exh. A-8 & A-15 in the list of documents Exh. 5

¶60

i) All that piece and parcel of property bearing Flat No. 4, Municipal House No. G0014686, Varad Muthiya, Kotwalpura, Samrath Nagar, Aurangabad, admeasuring 70 Sq. meters, which is bounded as under: East: Road, West: Flat No. 1, South: Nala, North: Flat No. 3.

(OA No.354/2025)

Page 7 of 8

[AMBADAS]

ii) All that piece and parcel of property bearing CTS No. 47/1, Municipal House No. 4/2660/2, Vaijapur, Taluka Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad, admeasuring 111.76 Sq. meters, which is bounded as under:

¶65

East: Plot No. 11,

¶66

West: Road, South: Road, North: Plot of Sunita D. Jagtap.

¶67

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

¶68

(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 defendant.

¶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:.24.08.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶73

(OA No.354/2025)

¶74

Page 8 of 8

¶75

[AMBADAS]

Bank of Maharashtra v. Chetan Kachru Jagtap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Chetan Kachru Jagtap

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

Canara Bank versus Sudhir Bhaurao Ghuge

Gulam Ali Khan Abdul Hameed Khan versus Svc Co. Operative Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Mr. Kanhaiyalal Kishanchand Nagarani

Union Bank of India versus Ms Balaji Fertilizers

Union Bank of India versus Suman Somnath Sanap

Union Bank of India versus M/S New Gajanan Krishi Sewa Kendra