Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Mr. Babasaheb Prahladrao Dilwale

DRT3 Jul 2026OA/412/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by The Bank of Maharashtra for recovery of Rs. 36,73,146/- along with interest. The court modified the future interest rate to 7% per annum simple and granted charge over mortgaged agricultural properties while the respondents were absent.

What did the court decide?

Allowed recovery of Rs. 36,73,146/- with future interest at 7% p.a. simple; granted charge and power of sale over specified mortgaged agricultural properties; directed issue of Recovery Certificate.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr. Babasaheb… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 21.06.2022 Registered on: 11.10.2022 Decided on: 03.07.2026 Duration: Y M D 04 00 12

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 412/2022

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 36,73,146/-

¶4

The Bank of Maharashtra,

¶5

a body corporate established and constituted under the banking companies (Acquisition and transfer Undertaking) Act of 1970 having its head office at 1510 “Lokmangal”, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-5 and one of its Branch office at Paithan Branch, Through its Branch Manager, Shri. Vaibhav Babarao Ingole, Age: 30 years, Occ.: Service as Branch Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Paithan Branch, Aurangabad and having authority to file the Original Application which includes the authority to sign and verify the Original Application.

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. Mr. Babasaheb S/o. Prahladrao Dilwale, Age: Major, Occ.: Agri., R/o.:- At Post Warudi, Taluka Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad 431107.

(OA No.412/2022)

Page 1 of 8

[AMBADAS]

2. Mrs. Prahlad S/o. Pandharinath Dilwale, Age: Major, Occ.: Agri., R/o.:- At Post Warudi, Taluka Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad 431107.

¶13

3. Mr. Parasram S/o. Machhindra Bankar,

¶14

Age: Major, Occ.: Agri., R/o.:- At Post Warudi, Taluka Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad 431107.

¶15

4. Mr. Ganesh S/o. Asaram Galdhar,

¶16

Age: Major, Occ.: Agri., R/o.:- At Post Warudi, Taluka Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad 431107.

¶17

…Defendants.

¶18

APPEARANCES

¶19

For the Applicant Mr. Sachin P. Talegaonkar - Advocate For Defendants Ex-parte

¶20

JUDGMENT Delivered on 03.07.2026

¶21

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 36,73,146/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lacs, Seventy Three Thousand, One Hundred and Forty Six only), along with further interest from the date of filing of the Original

(OA No.412/2022)

Page 2 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Application, i.e., 21.06.2022, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶26

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶27

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendants No. 1 & 2 had approached and requested the Applicant Bank for Term Loan Facility. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the Defendants, the Applicant Bank Sanctioned Agri. Term Loan Facility of Rs. 13,60,000/-, vide sanction letter dated 25.02.2014 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for aforesaid loan facility was @ 13.25% per annum with monthly rests. The Defendants also agreed to pay additional interest @2% by way of liquidated damages in the event of any default in repayment.

¶28

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendants executed various loan documents in favor of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letter, hypothecation agreement, and

(OA No.412/2022)

Page 3 of 8

[AMBADAS]

letter of undertaking, registered mortgage deed bearing

¶33

document No. P-T-N-1351/2014 dated 18.02.2014 etc.,

¶34

Additionally defendant No. 3 & 4 stood as guarantors for defendant no. 1 & 2 and executed deed of guarantee in favor of applicant bank.

¶35

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendants created first charge over immovable property by executing registered mortgage deed bearing document No. P-T-N-1351/2014 dated 18.02.2014 in favour of the Applicant Bank. The mortgage was created in respect of the following property:

¶36

All that piece and parcel of Agricultural property at Gut No. 36/1 admeasuring 1 Hector 40 R, Gut No. 39/1 admeasuring 1 Hector 96 R, at village Warudi and Gut No. 113/3 admeasuring 1 Hector 01 R, at Village Solnapur, Taluka Paithan, and District Aurangabad.

¶37

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

(OA No.412/2022)

Page 4 of 8

[AMBADAS]

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 24.01.2022 the applicant bank issued legal Notice to the defendants. The defendants failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶42

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 24.06.2025.

¶43

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Shri. Vaibhav S/o. Babarao Ingole, Branch Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Exh. A to I along with list of

(OA No.412/2022)

Page 5 of 8

[AMBADAS]

documentsExh.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 defendants 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 property of the borrower which is mortgaged in favour of the applicant bank.

¶51

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest at @13.25% with monthly rests from the date of filing i.e. 21.06.2022 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 @ 7% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

(OA No.412/2022)

Page 6 of 8

[AMBADAS]

ORDER

(A) Original Application No. 412/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶57

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 36,73,146/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lacs, Seventy Three Thousand, One Hundred and Forty Six only), along with future interest @ 7% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the O.A. i.e. 21.06.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶58

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

(OA No.412/2022)

Page 7 of 8

[AMBADAS]

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

¶64

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶65

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

¶66

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶67

Sd/-

¶68

Pronounced in open court. (Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Place: Aurangabad Presiding Officer Date:.03.07.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶69

(OA No.412/2022)

¶70

Page 8 of 8

¶71

[AMBADAS]

Bank of Maharashtra v. Mr. Babasaheb Prahladrao Dilwale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Mr. Babasaheb Prahladrao Dilwale

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr. Ravindra Visaram Padar

Bank of India versus Mr. Dattatraya Karbhari Landage

Bank of India versus Mrs. Manisha Sandeep Bhole

Bank of India versus Mr. Machhindra Devrao Gavhane

Bank of India versus Mr. Narayan Baburao Shame

Bank of India versus Mr. Harishchandra Uttamrao Sukose