Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Vaishnavi Thibak Sinchan Upsa Sahakari Panipuravatha

DRT12 Jan 2026OA/452/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the recovery application filed by Punjab National Bank against borrowers and guarantors for a term loan default. The court decreed payment of principal and reduced future interest at 10% simple, secured by mortgaged agricultural land.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 93,64,049/- with future interest @ 10% p.a. simple from filing date; mortgage properties secured; issue Recovery Certificate.

Punjab National Bank versus Vaishnavi Thibak… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 23.09.2022 Registered on: 01.11.2022 Decided on: 12.01.2026 Duration: Y M D 03 03 19

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 452/2022

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 93,64,049/-

¶4

Punjab National Bank,

¶5

A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970, having its Head Office at Plot No. 4, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi-75, and one of its Branch at Ghogargaon, Tq. Shirgonda, Dist. Ahmednagar through it’s Attorney, Mr. Rahul Nathaji Potphode .

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. Vaishnavi Thibak Sinchan Upsa Sahakari Panipuravatha At Ruikhel, Post Mandavgan, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar 413701.

¶9

2. Raghunath Eknath Mahandule,

¶10

Age: 55 years, Occ.: Agriculture, R/o.: House No. 10, At Ruikhel, Post Mandavgan, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar 413701.

(OA No.452/2022)

Page 1 of 11

[AMBADAS]

3. Balasaheb Eknath Mahandule,

¶15

Age: 50 years, Occ.: Agriculture, R/o.: House No. 10, At Ruikhel, Post Mandavgan, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar 413701.

¶16

4. Eknath Keru Mahandule,

¶17

Age: 75 years, Occ.: Agriculture, R/o.: House No. 9-2, At Ruikhel, Post Mandavgan, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar 413701.

¶18

5. Mrs. Janabai Eknath Mahandule,

¶19

Age: 70 years, Occ.: Agriculture, R/o.: House No. 10, At Ruikhel, Post Mandavgan, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar 413701.

¶20

6. Dadasaheb Janardan Kalokhe,

¶21

Age: 45 years, Occ.: Agriculture, R/o.: House No. 69, Bhose Wasti At Ruikhel, Post Mandavgan, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar 413701.

¶22

7. Mrs. Lila Janardan Kalokhe,

¶23

Age: 60 years, Occ.: Agriculture, R/o.: House No. 69, Bhose Wasti At Ruikhel, Post Mandavgan, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar 413701.

¶24

8. Mrs. Jayashree Dadasaheb Kalokhe,

¶25

Age: 42 years, Occ.: Agriculture, R/o.: House No. 69, Bhose Wasti At Ruikhel, Post Mandavgan, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar 413701.

(OA No.452/2022)

Page 2 of 11

[AMBADAS]

9. Vaishnavi Dadasaheb Kalokhe, Through her Guardian Mrs. Lila Janardhan Kalokhe, R/o.: House No. 69, Bhose Wasti At Ruikhel, Post Mandavgan, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar 413701.

¶30

…Defendants

¶31

APPEARANCES

¶32

For the Applicant Mr. Sameer J. Pande -Advocate For Defendants Ex-parte

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Delivered on 12.01.2026

¶35

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the

¶36

recovery of a sum of Rs. 93,64,049/- (Rupees Ninety Three Lacs, Sixty Four Thousand, Forty Nine only), along with future interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 23.09.2022, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶37

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶38

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendant No. 1 had approached and requested the Applicant Bank for Term Loan Facility. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the

(OA No.452/2022)

Page 3 of 11

[AMBADAS]

Defendant, the Applicant Bank sanctioned Term Loan Facility of

¶43

Rs. 33,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 26.03.2012 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for the aforesaid loan was @ 14.25 % 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.

¶44

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. 918/2012 dated 21.03.2012. Additionally defendant No. 2 to 8 stood as guarantors for defendant No. 1 and executed deed of guarantee dated 26.03.2012 in favour of the Applicant Bank

¶45

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendants executed mortgage deed bearing daybook no. 918/2012 dated 21.03.2012 in favour of the

(OA No.452/2022)

Page 4 of 11

[AMBADAS]

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

¶50

i) All that piece and parcel of Agriculture land admeasuring 0.94 H.R., of Survey No. 168 situated at village Ruikhel, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar owned by defendant No. 2.

¶51

ii) All that piece and parcel of Agriculture land admeasuring 0.93 H.R., of Survey No. 168 situated at village Ruikhel, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar owned by defendant No. 3.

¶52

iii) All that piece and parcel of Agriculture land admeasuring 0.74 H.R., of Survey No. 298/1 situated at village Ruikhel, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar owned by defendant No. 2.

¶53

iv) All that piece and parcel of Agriculture land admeasuring 0.73 H.R., of Survey No. 298/1 situated at village Ruikhel, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar owned by defendant No. 3.

¶54

v) All that piece and parcel of Agriculture land admeasuring 0.88 H.R., of Survey No. 298/1 situated at village Ruikhel, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar owned by defendant No. 7.

¶55

vi) All that piece and parcel of Agriculture land admeasuring 2.48 H.R., of Survey No. 298/1 situated at village Ruikhel, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar owned by defendant No. 5.

¶56

vii) All that piece and parcel of Agriculture land admeasuring 0.90 H.R., of Survey No. 196 situated at village Ruikhel, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar owned by defendant No. 4.

(OA No.452/2022)

Page 5 of 11

[AMBADAS]

viii) All that piece and parcel of Agriculture land admeasuring 0.02 H.R., of Survey No. 195 situated at village Ruikhel, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar owned by defendant No. 4.

¶61

ix) All that piece and parcel of Agriculture land admeasuring 2.09 & 0.04 H.R., of Survey No. 283 situated at village Ruikhel, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar owned by defendant No. 4.

¶62

x) All that piece and parcel of Agriculture land admeasuring 0.54 H.R., of Survey No. 7 situated at village Ruikhel, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar owned by defendant No. 5.

¶63

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 on 31.03.2021. Therefore on 21.04.2022 the applicant bank issued legal notice to the defendants through their advocate. Despite service of Notices, the

(OA No.452/2022)

Page 6 of 11

[AMBADAS]

defendants failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶68

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were served through summons. Hence, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 31.08.2023.

¶69

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-25 along with list of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶70

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

¶71

Since the defendants failed to appear and 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.

(OA No.452/2022)

Page 7 of 11

[AMBADAS]

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

¶76

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @14.25% p. a. from the date of filing i.e. 13.09.2022 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 @ 10% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶77

ORDER

¶78

(A) Original Application No. 452/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶79

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 93,64,049/- (Rupees Ninety Three Lacs, Sixty Four Thousand, Forty Nine only), along with future interest @ 10% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the O.A. i.e. 13.09.2022 till full

(OA No.452/2022)

Page 8 of 11

[AMBADAS]

payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶84

¶85

mortgage of the following vide document at Annexure

¶86

A-10 in list of documents Exh. 5.

¶87

i) All that piece and parcel of Agriculture land admeasuring 0.94 H.R., of Survey No. 168 situated at village Ruikhel, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar owned by defendant No. 2.

¶88

ii) All that piece and parcel of Agriculture land admeasuring 0.93 H.R., of Survey No. 168 situated at village Ruikhel, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar owned by defendant No. 3.

¶89

iii) All that piece and parcel of Agriculture land admeasuring 0.74 H.R., of Survey No. 298/1 situated at village Ruikhel, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar owned by defendant No. 2.

¶90

iv) All that piece and parcel of Agriculture land admeasuring 0.73 H.R., of Survey No. 298/1 situated at village Ruikhel, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar owned by defendant No. 3.

¶91

v) All that piece and parcel of Agriculture land admeasuring 0.88 H.R., of Survey No. 298/1 situated at village Ruikhel, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar owned by defendant No. 7.

(OA No.452/2022)

Page 9 of 11

[AMBADAS]

vi) All that piece and parcel of Agriculture land admeasuring 2.48 H.R., of Survey No. 298/1 situated at village Ruikhel, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar owned by defendant No. 5.

¶96

vii) All that piece and parcel of Agriculture land admeasuring 0.90 H.R., of Survey No. 196 situated at village Ruikhel, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar owned by defendant No. 4.

¶97

viii) All that piece and parcel of Agriculture land admeasuring 0.02 H.R., of Survey No. 195 situated at village Ruikhel, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar owned by defendant No. 4.

¶98

ix) All that piece and parcel of Agriculture land admeasuring 2.09 & 0.04 H.R., of Survey No. 283 situated at village Ruikhel, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar owned by defendant No. 4.

¶99

x) All that piece and parcel of Agriculture land admeasuring 0.54 H.R., of Survey No. 7 situated at village Ruikhel, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar owned by defendant No. 5.

¶100

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

(OA No.452/2022)

Page 10 of 11

[AMBADAS]

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶105

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

¶106

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶107

Sd/-

¶108

Pronounced in open court. (Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Place: Aurangabad Presiding Officer Date:.12.01.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶109

(OA No.452/2022)

¶110

Page 11 of 11

¶111

[AMBADAS]

Punjab National Bank v. Vaishnavi Thibak Sinchan Upsa Sahakari Panipuravatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Vaishnavi Thibak Sinchan Upsa Sahakari Panipuravatha

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

State Bank of India versus Mr. Ravindra Babulal Jain

State Bank of India versus M/S Jagdamba Steel

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Javed Kayyum Sawdagar

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr. Ramesh Baburao Kaduskar

Punjab National Bank versus Rajendra Vishwanath Pathare

Canara Bank versus M/S. Aadishree Construction