Allowed

Bank of India v. Mr. Pratap Narendra Vazarkar

DRT10 Jun 2026OA/598/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an ex-parte application by Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 67.35 lakhs plus interest against two borrowers and a guarantor, attaching mortgaged agricultural land and directing issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 67,35,021.09 with future interest at 9% p.a. simple; suit property attached; Recovery Certificate issued.

Bank of India versus Mr. Pratap Narendra Vazarkar — Consumer Protection | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 31.08.2025 Registered on: 01.10.2025 Decided on: 10.06.2026 Duration: Y M D 00 09 10

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 598/2025

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 67,35,021.09/-

¶4

Bank of India, A Body Corporate constituted under

¶5

the provisions of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970, Having its Head Office at Star House, “C-5”, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Comples, Bandra (East), Mumbai and having branches amongst the other places at Main Branch, Jalna, through its Power of Attorney, Mr. Vivek Kumar (Chief Manager) Age: 45 yrs., Occ.: Service, … Applicant R/o.: Deolali, Cantt. Nashik.

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Mr. Pratap Narendra Vazarkar, Age: Major, Occ.: Agri., R/o.: At Kawatha, Post Ranjani, Tq. and Dist. Jalna 431207.

(OA No.598/2025)

Page 1 of 8

[AMBADAS]

2. Mr. Narendra Vishwambhar Vazarkar, Age: Major, Occ.: Agri., R/o.: At Kawatha, Post Ranjani, Tq. and Dist. Jalna 431207.

¶12

…Defendants

¶13

APPEARANCES

¶14

For the Applicant For Defendants

¶15

Mr. K.D. Pande Advocate Ex-parte

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Delivered on 10.06.2026

¶18

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the

¶19

recovery of a sum of Rs. 67,35,021.09/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Lacs, Thirty Five Thousand, Twenty One and Nine Paisa only), along with further interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 31.08.2025, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶20

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶21

That, the defendant No. 1 had approached to the Applicant bank and requested to sanction Term Loan & Crop Loan. Upon considering the request and need of the defendants, the Applicant

(OA No.598/2025)

Page 2 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Bank Sanctioned Term loans of Rs. 2,82,000/- , Rs. 1,35,000/-, Rs.

¶26

4,46,0000/-, Rs. 2,46,000/-, Rs. 3,81,000/- and Crop Loan Facility of Rs. 3,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 29.05.2013 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest was @ 14.75% p.a. with half yearly rests. The defendants also agreed to pay an additional interest by way of liquidated damages @ 2% p.a. in case of default in repayment.

¶27

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendants executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank, including the sanction letter, hypothecation agreement, demand promissory note, registered mortgage deed bearing daybook no. 1964 dated 04.06.2013. Additionally Defendant No. 2 stood as

¶28

guarantor for Defendant No.1 and executed a Deed of Guarantee dated 04.06.2013 in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶29

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the Loan sanctioned to them, the Defendants created first charge over

(OA No.598/2025)

Page 3 of 8

[AMBADAS]

their immovable property by executing a registered mortgage

¶34

deed bearing daybook no. 1964 dated 04.06.2013, in favour of the Applicant Bank. The mortgage was created in respect of the following property –

¶35

All that piece and parcel of agricultural land admeasuring 4 H 11 R out of Gat No. 28, situated at Village Kawatha, Tq. & Dist. Jalna, which is bounded as under: East :- Land of Anita Narendra Vazarkar, West :- Land of Asha Rajendra Vazarkar, South:- Dudhana River, North: - Tanda Road.

¶36

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 defendant became

(OA No.598/2025)

Page 4 of 8

[AMBADAS]

irregular and classified as NPA on 30.06.2018. Therefore on 12.08.2025 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.

¶41

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were served through RPAD. Hence, the defendants were proceeded exparte as per Order dated 21.04.2026.

¶42

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-04 of Mr. Vivek Kumar, POA of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Exh. A-1 to A-43 as per list of documents Exh.05 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶43

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

¶44

Since the defendants failed to appear and did not contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted

(OA No.598/2025)

Page 5 of 8

[AMBADAS]

evidence of the applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for the reliefs as claimed.

¶49

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

¶50

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @14.75% per annum on loan from the date of filing i.e. 31.08.2025 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) on outstanding amount, it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶51

ORDER

¶52

(A) Original Application No. 598/2025 is allowed with

¶53

(B)

¶54

costs.

¶55

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 67,35,021.09/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Lacs, Thirty Five Thousand, Twenty One and Nine

(OA No.598/2025)

Page 6 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Paisa only), along with future interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 31.08.2025 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶60

¶61

documents at Exh. A-26 in list of documents Exh. 5.

¶62

¶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.

(OA No.598/2025)

Page 7 of 8

[AMBADAS]

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

¶69

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶70

Sd/-

¶71

Pronounced in open court. Place: Aurangabad Date:.10.06.2026

¶72

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

¶73

(OA No.598/2025)

¶74

Page 8 of 8

¶75

[AMBADAS]

Bank of India v. Mr. Pratap Narendra Vazarkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Mr. Pratap Narendra Vazarkar

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

State Bank of India versus Mr. Kanhaiyalal Kishanchand Nagarani

Canara Bank versus Mr. Sharad Appasaheb Labde

Ms Shilpa Agency versus Central Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Maruti Mhatarba Kadam

Bank of India versus Mr. Sudhakar Balu Shinde

Bank of India versus Mr. Vishal Rajendra Vazarkar