Allowed

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

DRT13 Aug 2026OA/541/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendants executed a Bank Guarantee facility with Applicant Bank and executed a mortgage deed. Defendants failed to repay dues leading to formation of an NPA. Tribunal allowed application and ordered payment of principal and interest.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay jointly and severally sum of Rs. 75,72,325/- plus future interest at 9% p.a. (simple); issue Recovery Certificate; declare right to sell mortgaged property.

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S Bahujan Hitay Magasvargiya… — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 17.05.2025 Registered on: 29.08.2025 Decided on: 13.08.2026 Duration: Y M D 01 02 26

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 541/2025

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 75,72,325/Bank of Maharashtra , A Body Corporate constituted under the provisions of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act V of 1970, & Having its Head Office at 1501, “Lokmangal”, Shivaji Nagar, Pune and Branch amongst other places at Assets Recovery Branch, Zonal Office Cidco Aurangabad, Through its Chief Manager, Mr. Somnath Bajrang Sasane, Age: 38 years, Occ.: Service as Chief Manager with Bank of Maharashtra, Asset … Applicant Recovery Branch, Cidco Aurangabad, R/o.: Aurangabad.

¶4

Versus

¶5

M/s. Bahujan Hitay Magasvargiya Auyodik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Having registered office at 10/7, Bharat Nagar, N-13, CIDCO, Aurangabad. And

(OA No.541/2025)

Page 1 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Factory at Gut No. 16, Khojewadi, Near Bombay Highway, Taluka Gangapur, Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar Through its Chairman Vesnatar Prakash Thorat.

¶10

2. Vesnatar Prakash Thorat , Age: Major, Occupation: Business, R/o.: Gut No. 16, Khojewadi, Near Bombay Highway, Taluka Gangapur, Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar. And 10/7, Bharat Nagar, N-13, CIDCO, Aurangabad.

¶11

3. Santosh Rangrao Bore, Age: Major, Occupation: Business, R/o.: C/o. Rangarao Bore, M-2, 58/4, N-9 CIDCO, Aurangabad.

¶12

…Defendants

¶13

APPEARANCES For the Applicant For Defendants

¶14

Mr. Mohan B. Jaiswal -Advocate Ex-parte

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Delivered on 13.08.2026

¶17

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the

¶18

recovery of a sum of Rs. 75,72,325/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lacs,

(OA No.541/2025)

Page 2 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Seventy Two Thousand, Three Hundred and Twenty Five only), along with future interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 17.05.2025, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶23

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶24

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendant No. 1 had approached and requested the Applicant Bank for Bank Guarantee Facility. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the Defendant, the Applicant Bank Sanctioned Bank Guarantee Facility of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- vide, sanction letter dated 18.05.2016 on certain terms and conditions. The Defendants also

¶25

agreed to pay additional interest @2% by way of liquidated damages in the event of any default in repayment.

¶26

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendant executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letter, registered mortgage deed bearing daybook No. 237/2016 dated 23.08.2016, demand promissory

(OA No.541/2025)

Page 3 of 8

[AMBADAS]

note, and counter guarantee for Bank Guarantee Limit etc.

¶31

Additionally, defendant No. 2 & 3 stood as guarantors for

¶32

defendant no. 1 and executed deed of guarantee in favour of the

¶33

Applicant Bank.

¶34

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendants executed registered

¶35

mortgage deed bearing daybook No. 237/2016 dated 23.08.2016

¶36

in respect of following property:

¶37

All that piece and parcel of Property bearing land Gut No. 16, Khojewadi, Taluka Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad, admeasuring 20 R belonging to defendant no. 1, which is bounded as under:

¶38

East: Road, West: Land of Vesantar Thorat, South: Land of Matorshri Ramabai Ambedkar Schedule Co.op Society Ltd.

¶39

North: Land Rajratna Schedule Co. Op. Society Ltd.

¶40

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

¶41

operate the loan account properly and failed to pay the agreed

(OA No.541/2025)

Page 4 of 8

[AMBADAS]

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 25.11.2023. Therefore, on 23.11.2023 the applicant bank issued legal notice to the defendants through their advocate. Despite service of Notices, the defendants failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

¶46

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were served through RPAD. Hence, the defendants were proceeded exparte as per Order dated 26.02.2026.

¶47

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Somnath Bajrang Sasane, Chief Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Exh. AW-1 to AW-25 along with list of

(OA No.541/2025)

Page 5 of 8

[AMBADAS]

documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶52

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

¶53

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.

¶54

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

¶55

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @17.50% p.a. from the date of filing i.e. 17.05.2025 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 @ 9% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

(OA No.541/2025)

Page 6 of 8

[AMBADAS]

ORDER

(A) Original Application No. 541/2025 is allowed with costs.

¶61

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of 75,72,325/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lacs, Seventy Two Thousand, Three Hundred and Twenty Five only), along with future interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 17.05.2025 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶62

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the mortgage of the following immovable properties vide document Exh. AW-8 in the list of documents Exh. 5.

¶63

All that piece and parcel of Property bearing land Gut No. 16, Khojewadi, Taluka Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad, admeasuring 20 R belonging to defendant no. 1, which is bounded as under:

(OA No.541/2025)

Page 7 of 8

[AMBADAS]

East: Road, West: Land of Vesantar Thorat, South: Land of Matorshri Ramabai Ambedkar Schedule Co.op Society Ltd.

¶68

North: Land Rajratna Schedule Co. Op. Society Ltd.

¶69

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged immovable property and hypothecated articles/goods

¶70

etc., to recover its dues.

¶71

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶72

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

¶73

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶74

Sd/Pronounced in open court. (Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Place: Aurangabad Presiding Officer Date:.13.08.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶75

(OA No.541/2025)

¶76

Page 8 of 8

¶77

[AMBADAS]

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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 India versus Rajendra Kisan Berad

Central Bank of India versus Vaibhav Pandurang Gagare