Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Tuljabhavani Transport

DRT23 Jan 2026OA/61/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the original application filed by Bank of Baroda against M/s. Tuljabhavani Transport and Savita Dhondiram Kavale. The court adjudicated the claim of Rs. 50.33 lakhs and granted future interest at 9% p.a., with permission to sell the hypothecated vehicle for recovery.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 50,33,744/- with future interest @ 9% p.a. (simple) from 04.01.2025. Applicant entitled to sell hypothecated vehicle.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Tuljabhavani Transport — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 04.01.2025 Registered on: 29.01.2025 Decided on: 23.01.2026 Duration: Y M D 01 00 19

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 61/2025

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 50,33,744/-

¶4

Bank of Baroda ,

¶5

A Body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act V, 1970 having its Local Head office at Mandavi, Baroda and one of its Branch at Stressed Assets Recovery Branch and acting through its power of Attorney Holder and one of its Chief Manager Mr. Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, Age: 53 years, Occupation: Service as chief Manager, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Plot No. 8, Town Centre Connaught place N-5, CIDCO. Aurangabad and having authority to file the application which includes the authority to sign and verify the application.

… Applicant

(OA No.61/2025)

Page 1 of 8

[AMBADAS]

Versus

1. M/s. Tuljabhavani Transport, Prop. Dhondiram Nana Kavale, Age: 40 Years, Occupation: Business, R/o: - Kavale Wasti, At Post Bavi, Taluka Asthi, District Beed 414 203.

¶12

AND

¶13

House No. 46, Godavari, Sainagar, Near Sourabh Comp. Bolhegaon, Taluka and District Ahmednagar. 414003.

¶14

AND

¶15

Plot No. 4 5/3, Survey No. 4A/1/2, Ubha Maruti Javal, Bolhegaon, MIDC, Taluka and District Ahmednagar. 414003.

¶16

2. Savita Dhondiram Kavale, Age: 38 Years, Occupation: Housewife, R/o: - Kavale Wasti, At Post Bavi, Taluka Asthi, District Beed 414 203.

¶17

AND

¶18

House No. 46, Godavari, Sainagar, Near Sourabh Comp. Bolhegaon, Taluka and District Ahmednagar. 414003.

¶19

AND

¶20

Plot No. 4 5/3, Survey No. 4A/1/2, Ubha Maruti Javal, Bolhegaon, MIDC, Taluka and District Ahmednagar. 414003.

…Defendants

(OA No.61/2025)

Page 2 of 8

[AMBADAS]

APPEARANCES

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

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Delivered on 23.01.2026

¶29

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 50,33,744/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs, Thirty Three Thousand, Seven Hundred and Forty Four only), along with future interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 04.01.2025, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶30

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶31

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendant No. 1 had approached and requested the Applicant Bank for financial assistance. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the Defendants, the Applicant Bank sanctioned Term loan facility of Rs. 49,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 29.12.2022 on

(OA No.61/2025)

Page 3 of 8

[AMBADAS]

certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for the

¶36

aforesaid loan facility was @11.35% p.a. with monthly rests. The Defendants also agreed to pay additional interest @2% by way of liquidated damages in the event of any default in repayment.

¶37

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendants executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letter, hypothecation agreement, demand promissory note, letter of undertaking, hypothecation agreement and letter of sole proprietorship. Additionally defendant No. 2 stood as guarantor for defendant No. 1 and executed deed of guarantee dated 29.12.2022 in favour of the

¶38

Applicant Bank

¶39

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendants executed hypothecation agreement thereby hypothecating Ashok Leyland LTD been registered with the Regional Transport Office, Ahmednagar

(OA No.61/2025)

Page 4 of 8

[AMBADAS]

bearing Registration No. MH 16 CD 7479 bearing Engine No. NCPZ133607 and Chassis No. MB1NECHD1NPCT6523 etc., in

¶44

favor of the applicant bank.

¶45

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 irregular and classified as NPA on 08.01.2024. Therefore on 12.12.2024 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.

(OA No.61/2025)

Page 5 of 8

[AMBADAS]

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were duly served. Hence, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 07.08.2025.

¶50

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Mr. Pradeep Kumar Shrivastava, Chief Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Annexure A-1 to A-12 along with list of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶51

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

¶52

Since the defendants 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.

¶53

The applicant Bank has claimed charge over hypothecated properties of the borrowers.

(OA No.61/2025)

Page 6 of 8

[AMBADAS]

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @11.35% p.a. on from the date of filing i.e. 04.01.2025 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.

¶58

ORDER

¶59

(A) Original Application No. 61/2025 is allowed with costs.

¶60

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 50,33,744/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs, Thirty Three Thousand, Seven Hundred and Forty Four only), along with future interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 04.01.2025 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶61

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the hypothecation of Ashok Leyland LTD been registered with the Regional Transport Office, Ahmednagar

(OA No.61/2025)

Page 7 of 8

[AMBADAS]

bearing Registration No. MH 16 CD 7479 bearing Engine

¶66

No. NCPZ133607 and Chassis No.

¶67

MB1NECHD1NPCT6523 vide documents at Annexure A-

¶68

8 in list of documents Exh. 5.

¶69

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

¶70

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶71

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

¶72

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶73

Sd/-

¶74

Pronounced in open court. (Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Place: Aurangabad Presiding Officer Date: 23.01.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶75

(OA No.61/2025)

¶76

Page 8 of 8

¶77

[AMBADAS]

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Tuljabhavani Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Tuljabhavani Transport

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

Punjab National Bank versus Ujwala Sanjay Galande

Punjab National Bank versus Kakasaheb Raghunath Pathare

Bank of India versus Mr. Santosh Baburao Jivrak

Sangita Manish Bhandari versus State Bank of India

Canara Bank versus Rahul Prakash Surdakar

Central Bank of India versus Gayatri Prakash Khare