Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Mr. Rameshawar So Damodar Galdhar

DRT6 Jul 2026OA/425/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Bank of Maharashtra's application for recovery of a defaulted agricultural term loan. The tribunal accepted the bank's evidence ex-parte and granted recovery of the principal amount along with future interest at 7% per annum and secured the claim over mortgaged agricultural property.

What did the court decide?

Allowed recovery of Rs. 28,21,253/- with future simple interest at 7% per annum; secured by mortgaged property and entitlement to sell it.

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

¶1

Presented on: 23.06.2022 Registered on: 11.10.2022 Decided on: 06.07.2026 Duration: Y M D 03 11 13

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 425/2022

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 28,21,253/-

¶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. Rameshwar S/o. Damodar Galdhar, Age: Major, Occ.: Agri., R/o.:- At Post Warudi, Taluka Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad 431107.

(OA No.425/2022)

Page 1 of 8

[AMBADAS]

2. Mrs. Sumitra W/o. Rameshwar Galdhar, Age: Major, Occ.: Agri., R/o.:- At Post Warudi, Taluka Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad 431107.

¶13

3. Mr. Devidas S/o. Ambadas Bondre,

¶14

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

¶15

4. Mr. Ambadas S/o. Rambhau Bondre,

¶16

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

¶17

…Defendants.

¶18

APPEARANCES

¶19

For the Applicant For Defendants

¶20

Mr. Sachin P. Talegaonkar - Advocate Ex-parte

¶21

JUDGMENT Delivered on 06.07.2026

¶22

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 28,21,253/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs, Twenty One Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty Three only), along with further interest from the date of filing of the Original

(OA No.425/2022)

Page 2 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Application, i.e., 23.06.2022, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶27

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶28

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. 14,25,000/-, vide sanction letter dated 14.03.2015 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.

¶29

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.425/2022)

Page 3 of 8

[AMBADAS]

letter of undertaking, registered mortgage deed bearing document No. P-T-N-1942/2014 dated 10.03.2014 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-1942/2014 dated 10.03.2014 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. 152/2 totally admeasuring 58 R, Gut No. 152/4 admeasuring 1 Hector 15 R, Gut No. 8 admeasuring 1 Hector 68 R, Gut No. 18 admeasuring 50 R at Village Warudi, 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.425/2022)

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 24.05.2022 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.425/2022)

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 borrowers 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. 23.06.2022 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.425/2022)

Page 6 of 8

[AMBADAS]

ORDER

(A) Original Application No. 425/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶57

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 28,21,253/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs, Twenty One Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty Three only), along with future interest @ 7% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the O.A. i.e. 23.06.2022 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.425/2022)

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:.06.07.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶69

(OA No.425/2022)

¶70

Page 8 of 8

¶71

[AMBADAS]

Bank of Maharashtra v. Mr. Rameshawar So Damodar Galdhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Mr. Rameshawar So Damodar Galdhar

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 Pravin Sudhakar Satonkar

Bank of Maharashtra versus Jijabrao Baburao Patil

Bhagwan Arjun Pachpinde versus Ajantha Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd.

Bank of India versus Mrs. Aasha Rajendra Vazarkar

Axis Bank Limited versus Mr. Dhananjay Shamrao Bhise

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr. Santosh Ramnath Fasate