Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S Srushti Agro Production

DRT2 Jul 2026OA/591/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by Union Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 92,05,053/- owed by agricultural borrowers. The court dismissed the defendants' absence by default, awarded the principal plus future interest at 7% p.a., and ordered the sale of mortgaged land.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay Rs. 92,05,053/- with future interest at 7% p.a.; authorization to sell mortgaged property; issue of Recovery Certificate.

Union Bank of India versus M/S Srushti Agro… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 01.09.2025 Registered on: 20.09.2025 Decided on: 02.07.2026 Duration: Y M D 00 10 01

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 591/2025

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 92,05,053/-

¶4

Union Bank of India, (Erstwhile “Corporation Bank”) A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Registered office at 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 & having branches amongst the other places at Sugaon Bk., Tq. Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar, through its POA, Mr. Vikram Vilasrao Jadhav (Branch Manager), Age: 36 yrs., Occ.: Service, R/o. Sugaon Bk., Tq. Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶5

Versus

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

1. M/s. Srushti Agro Production, Through its Prop. Mrs. Subhadra Vaibhav Karpe Age: Major, Occ.: Agri., R/o.: At Pimpalgaon Konzira, Tal. Sangamner Dist. Ahmednagar 422610.

(OA No.591/2025)

Page 1 of 8

[AMBADAS]

2. Mrs. Subhadra Vaibhav Karpe Age: Major, Occ.: Agri., R/o.: At Pimpalgaon Konzira, Tal. Sangamner Dist. Ahmednagar 422610

¶12

…Defendants

¶13

APPEARANCES

¶14

For the Applicant Mr. K.D. Pande -Advocate For Defendants Ex-parte

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Delivered on 02.07.2026

¶17

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the

¶18

recovery of a sum of Rs. 92,05,053/- (Rupees Ninety Two Lacs, Five Thousand, and Fifty Three only), along with future interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 01.09.2025, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶19

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶20

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendant No. 2 being proprietor of defendant No. 1 approached and requested the Applicant Bank seeking financial assistance. Upon considering the

(OA No.591/2025)

Page 2 of 8

[AMBADAS]

request and financial needs of the Defendant, the Applicant Bank sanctioned Agri. Term loan facility of Rs. 74,00,000/- & Cash Credit Facility of Rs. 20,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 20.11.2023 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for the aforesaid loan was @8.50% & @12.70% p.a. respectively with half yearly rests. The Defendant also agreed to pay additional interest @2% by way of liquidated damages in the event of any default in repayment.

¶25

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendant executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letter, registered mortgage deed bearing daybook no. 7068 dated 22.11.2023, letter of undertaking, demand promissory note, letter of continuity & hypothecation agreement. Etc., Additionally defendant No. 2 stood as guarantor for defendant No. 1 and executed deed of guarantee dated 23.11.2023 in favour of the Applicant Bank.

(OA No.591/2025)

Page 3 of 8

[AMBADAS]

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendants executed registered mortgage deed bearing daybook no. 7068 dated 22.11.2023 in favour of the Applicant Bank. The mortgage was created in respect of the following property-

¶30

All that piece and parcel of agriculture land, admeasuring 50 R, bearing Survey No. 92/2, situated at village Kokanewadi Pimpalgaon Konzira Road, Kokanewadi, Tq. Sangamner Dist. Ahmednagar, which is bounded as under:

¶31

East: Pimpalgaon Konzira Road, West: Village boundary forest and mountain, South: Survey No. 92/Part Shriram Vijay Karpe, North: Survey No. 93 & Property of Sachin Dagdu Kokan.

¶32

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

(OA No.591/2025)

Page 4 of 8

[AMBADAS]

irregular and classified as NPA on 31.03.2025. Therefore, on 08.08.2025 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.

¶37

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were served through RPAD. Hence, the defendants were proceeded exparte as per Order dated 30.01.2026.

¶38

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Mr. Vikram Vilasrao Jadhav, Branch Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Exh. A-1 to A-24 along with list of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶39

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

(OA No.591/2025)

Page 5 of 8

[AMBADAS]

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.

¶44

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

¶45

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @ 8.50% & @12.70% respectively p. a. from the date of filing i.e. 01.09.2025 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 @ 7% per annum (simple) on outstanding amount, it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(A) Original Application No. 591/2025 is allowed with costs.

(OA No.591/2025)

Page 6 of 8

[AMBADAS]

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 92,05,053/- (Rupees Ninety Two Lacs, Five Thousand, and Fifty Three only), along with future interest @ 7% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 01.09.2025 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶52

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the mortgage of the following immovable property vide documents at Exh. A-16 in list of documents Exhibit 5.

¶53

¶54

East: Pimpalgaon Konzira Road, West: Village boundary forest and mountain, South: Survey No. 92/Part Shriram Vijay Karpe, North: Survey No. 93 & Property of Sachin Dagdu Kokan.

(OA No.591/2025)

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.

¶59

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶60

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

¶61

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

Pronounced in open court. (Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Place: Aurangabad Presiding Officer Date:.02.07.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶64

(OA No.591/2025)

¶65

Page 8 of 8

¶66

[AMBADAS]

Union Bank of India v. M/S Srushti Agro Production

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S Srushti Agro Production

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

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Sadashiv Kashinath Bhor

Union Bank of India versus Mrs. Mira Bhima Holgir

Bank of Maharashtra versus Smt.Shailabai Machindra Gayke

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr. Ravindra Visaram Padar

Bank of India versus Mr. Dattatraya Karbhari Landage

Bank of India versus Mrs. Manisha Sandeep Bhole