Allowed

State Bank of India v. Keshav Tukaram Kendre

DRT26 Mar 2026OA/481/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of Rs. 34,05,335/- along with future interest, following an ex parte hearing. The respondent failed to appear, and the court confirmed the bank's claim and directed the issuance of a Recovery Certificate secured by hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Respondent to pay Rs. 34,05,335/- plus 8% simple interest from filing date; Recovery Certificate issued secured by hypothecated assets.

State Bank of India versus Keshav Tukaram Kendre — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 27.07.2022 Registered on: 22.11.2022 Decided on: 26.03.2026 Duration: Y M D 03 07 29

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 481/2022

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 34,05,335/-

¶4

State Bank of India,

¶5

A body Corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its Central office at Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021 and interalia Branch office at Latur, Ashok Silk Mills, 1^st Floor, Chandra Nagar, Latur-413502, through it’s Chief Manager Mr. Srirang Chandrashekhar Palnitkar, Age: 52, Occ.: Service as Chief Manager, branch at Chandra Nagar, Latur-413502.

¶6

Versus

¶7

… Applicant

¶8

Keshav S/o. Tukaram Kendre, Prop. of M/s. K.K. Engineers, Age: Major, Occ.: Business, R/o.: Plot No. 7, Survey No. 33, Behind old MIDC, Near Dwarka Society, Bhamra Chowk, Latur-431502.

¶9

…Defendant

¶10

APPEARANCES

¶11

For the Applicant For Defendant

¶12

Mr. Sachin S. Katariya Advocate Ex-parte

(OA No.481/2022)

Page 1 of 9

[AMBADAS]

JUDGMENT Delivered on 26.03.2026

¶17

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the

¶18

recovery of a sum of Rs. 34,05,335/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lacs, Five Thousand, Three Hundred and Thirty Five only), along with further interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 27.07.2022, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendant.

¶19

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶20

The applicant bank states that the Defendant had approached the Applicant Bank requesting sanction of Term Loan Facility. After due consideration, the Bank sanctioned Term Loan Facility of ₹23,75,000/- vide Arrangement Letter dated 11.06.2018, subject to certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for the said facility was @11.50% per annum with monthly rests. Additionally, the Defendant agreed to pay further interest at the

(OA No.481/2022)

Page 2 of 9

[AMBADAS]

rate of 2% per annum by way of liquidated damages in the event of default in repayment.

¶25

Furthermore, the defendant again approached the applicant bank to sanction term loan. After due consideration, the Bank Sanctioned Term Loan Facility 2 of ₹12,750 /- & Term Loan Facility 2 of ₹1,53,897/- vide Arrangement Letter dated 20.03.2020, subject to certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for the said facilities was @8.55% & @8.05% per annum respectively with monthly rests. Additionally, the Defendant agreed to pay further interest at the rate of 2% per annum by way of liquidated damages in the event of default in repayment.

¶26

Furthermore, the defendant again approached the applicant bank to sanction Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme. After due consideration, the Bank sanctioned Guaranteed Emergency Credit Line (GECL) of ₹5,07,900/- vide Arrangement Letter dated

(OA No.481/2022)

Page 3 of 9

[AMBADAS]

10.07.2020, subject to certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for the said facility was @9.25% per annum with monthly rests. Additionally, the Defendant agreed to pay further interest at the rate of 2% per annum by way of liquidated damages in the event of default in repayment.

¶31

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendant executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank, including the arrangement letters, hypothecation agreements, etc., in favor of the Applicant Bank.

¶32

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendant executed hypothecation agreement, in favour of the Bank thereby hypothecating entire stocks of raw materials, finish goods, stock in process, store and spares, packing material of the unit at their factory premises or at some other places including goods in transits, outstanding moneys, book debts, receivables etc., the plant and machinery

(OA No.481/2022)

Page 4 of 9

[AMBADAS]

specifically the kitchen sink manufacturing machinery purchased

¶37

on 23.05.2018 from supplier PMT Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd.

¶38

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 07.01.2021. Therefore, on 24.05.202 the applicant bank issued legal notice to the defendant through his advocate. Despite service of Notices, the defendant failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

(OA No.481/2022)

Page 5 of 9

[AMBADAS]

The defendant failed to appear in matter though he was served through Court Commissioner. Hence, the defendant was proceeded ex parte as per Order dated 16.01.2025.

¶43

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-10 of Abhay S/o. Shridhar Boradkar, Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Exhibit A-1 to A-13 as per list of documents Exh. 11 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶44

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

¶45

Since the defendant 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.

¶46

The applicant Bank has claimed charge over the hypothecated properties.

(OA No.481/2022)

Page 6 of 9

[AMBADAS]

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @8.55%, @15.65% & @ 8.3% on loans with monthly rests from the date of filing i.e. 27.07.2022 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 @ 8% per annum (simple) on outstanding amount, it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶51

ORDER

¶52

(A) Original Application No. 481/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶53

(B) The defendant shall pay to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 34,05,335/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lacs, Five Thousand, Three Hundred and Thirty Five only),along with future interest @ 8% per annum (simple), from the date of filing of the O.A. i.e. 27.07.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

(OA No.481/2022)

Page 7 of 9

[AMBADAS]

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the hypothecation of entire stocks of raw materials, finish goods, stock in process, store and spares, packing material of the unit at their factory premises or at some other places including goods in transits, outstanding moneys, book debts, receivables etc., the plant and machinery specifically the kitchen sink manufacturing machinery purchased on 23.05.2018 from supplier PMT Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. vide document at Exh. A-8 in list of documents Exh. 11.

¶58

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

¶59

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

(OA No.481/2022)

Page 8 of 9

[AMBADAS]

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

¶64

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

Pronounced in open court. Place: Aurangabad Date:.26.03.2026

¶67

(Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶68

(OA No.481/2022)

¶69

Page 9 of 9

¶70

[AMBADAS]

State Bank of India v. Keshav Tukaram Kendre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Keshav Tukaram Kendre

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Mr. Ram Jagganath Singare

State Bank of India versus Mr. Gopal Lala Rathod

Canara Bank versus Aditya Enterprises

Punjab National Bank versus Pawanputra Sahakari Thibak Sinchan Yojna Maryadit

Idbi Bank versus Bhaskar S/o Maruti Tambe

Punjab National Bank versus Parmveer Gangadhar Pandule