Allowed

Central Bank of India v. Vaibhav Pandurang Gagare

DRT13 Aug 2026OA/538/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the original application filed by Central Bank of India for recovery of a term loan. Being ex-parte, the Tribunal decreed the principal sum and awarded future interest at 7% p.a., granting rights to sell mortgaged property and issue a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Decree for payment of Rs. 26,89,120/- with future interest at 7% p.a.; sanction to sell mortgaged property; issue of Recovery Certificate.

Central Bank of India versus Vaibhav Pandurang… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 16.07.2025 Registered on: 29.08.2025 Decided on: 13.08.2026 Duration: Y M D 01 00 27

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 538/2025

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 26,89,120/-

¶4

Central Bank of India, A body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act V, 1970 having its Central Office at “Chander Mukhi” Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021, and amongst other places having a one of its Branch at Palshi, Taluka Parner, District Ahmednagar and acting through one of its authorized officer, Mr. Tushar Raosaheb Shinde, Age: 30 years, Occ.: Service as Branch Manager, Central Bank of India Palshi Branch, Taluka Parner District Ahmednagar and having authority to file the application which includes the authority to sign and verify the application.

… Applicant

(OA No.538/2025)

Page 1 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Versus

1. Vaibhav Pandurang Gagare, Age: 28 Years, Occupation: Business, R/o.: Village Mandave Khurd, Taluka Parner, Dist. Ahilyanagar (Ahmednagar) 422 622.

¶11

2. Shantabai Pandurang Gagare, Age: 47 Years, Occupation: Business, R/o.: Village Mandave Khurd, Taluka Parner, Dist. Ahilyanagar (Ahmednagar) 422 622.

¶12

3. M/s. Shrikrushna Mulakhore Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sanstha Maryadit, Through its Chairman R/o.: Village Mandave Khurd, Taluka Parner, Dist. Ahilyanagar (Ahmednagar) 422 622. …Defendants APPEARANCES

¶13

For the Applicant Mrs. Rajashree R. Yewale - Advocate For Defendants Ex-parte

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

Delivered on 13.08.2026

¶16

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the

¶17

recovery of a sum of Rs. 26,89,120/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs,

(OA No.538/2025)

Page 2 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Eighty Nine Thousand, One Hundred and Twenty only), along with future interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 16.07.2025, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶22

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶23

The Applicant Bank states that Defendant No. 1 & 2 approached and requested the Applicant Bank for Term Loan Facility. Upon Considering the request and financial requirements of the Defendants, the Applicant Bank sanctioned the Term Loan Facility of Rs. 24,80,000/- for carrying the activity of dairy vide sanction letter dated 19.12.2022 on certain terms and conditions.

¶24

The agreed rate of interest for the said facility was @11.10% per annum with monthly rests. The Defendants further agreed to pay additional interest @ 2% per annum by way of liquidated damages in the event of default in repayment.

¶25

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendant No. 1 & 2 executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant

(OA No.538/2025)

Page 3 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Bank. These included sanction letter, hypothecation agreement,

¶30

registered mortgage deed bearing document No. PRN-8548-2022 dated 30.12.2022 etc., in favour of the Applicant Bank. The defendant No. 3 executed tripartite agreement for repayment of loan amount granted to defendant No. 1 and 2 by the applicant bank.

¶31

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendants executed registered mortgage deed bearing document No. PRN-8548-2022 dated 30.12.2022 in respect of following property:

¶32

All that piece and parcel of land admeasuring 1 Hector 58 R + 0 H 17 R along with construction thereon, situated at Gut No. 549, Village Mandve Khurd, Taluka Parner District Ahmednagar, which is bounded as under:

¶33

East: Cover, South: 550, West: 558, North: 543.

¶34

The applicant bank contended that the defendants have failed to

¶35

keep their promise and commitments agreed by them with regard

(OA No.538/2025)

Page 4 of 8

[AMBADAS]

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 30.04.2024. Therefore, on 23.02.2025 the applicant bank issued demand notice to the defendants through their advocate. Despite service of Notice, the defendants failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶40

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were served through RPAD. Hence, the defendants were proceeded exparte as per Order dated 28.04.2026.

¶41

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-04 of Tushar Roasaheb Shinde, Branch Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan

(OA No.538/2025)

Page 5 of 8

[AMBADAS]

transaction documents as Annexure A-1 to A-10 as per list of documents Exh. 5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶46

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

¶47

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.

¶48

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

¶49

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest at contractual rates from the date of filing i.e. 16.07.2025 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 @

(OA No.538/2025)

Page 6 of 8

[AMBADAS]

7% p.a. (simple) on outstanding amount, it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶54

ORDER

¶55

(A) Original Application No. 538/2025 is allowed with costs.

¶56

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 26,89,120/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs, Eighty Nine Thousand, One Hundred and Twenty only), along with future interest @ 7% p.a. (simple), from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 16.07.2025 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶57

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the mortgage of the following immovable property vide documents at Annexure A-7 in the list of documents Exh. 5.

(OA No.538/2025)

Page 7 of 8

[AMBADAS]

East: Cover, South: 550, West: 558, North: 543.

¶63

(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:.13.08.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶69

(OA No.538/2025)

¶70

Page 8 of 8

¶71

[AMBADAS]

Central Bank of India v. Vaibhav Pandurang Gagare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Bank of India v. Vaibhav Pandurang Gagare

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

Union Bank of India versus Jayaram Lahanu Hase

State Bank of India versus Anand Sahebrao Kakde

Hdfc Bank versus Sumedh Ashokrao Gaikwad

State Bank of India versus Ankush Sudam Jadhav

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S Bahujan Hitay Magasvargiya Auyodik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit

Bank of India versus Rajendra Kisan Berad