Allowed

Bank of India v. Mahesh Londhe

DRT11 Feb 2026OA/624/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Bank of India for recovery of loan dues from a borrower and guarantor, modifying the interest rate from 13.45% to 9% per annum while recognizing the mortgage charge held by a third party bank.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs.15,76,178 with future interest at 9% per annum and the debt is secured by mortgaged properties subject to first charge of respondent No.3.

Bank of India versus Mahesh Londhe — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on .. 27.07.2018 Registered on .. 19.04.2023 Decided on .. 11.02.2026 Duration .. Y—M—D 07--06--14

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer)

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 624/2023.

¶4

Bank of India,

¶5

A Bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and having its head office at Star House, C-5, G Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400051 and branch office at – Kavathe Mahankal, Taluka Kavathe Mahankal, District Sangli 416 405.

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

1 Mr. Mahesh Gopal Londhe, Age Adult, Occ. Agriculture, R/o : A/P Hingangaon, Taluka Kavathe Mahankal, District Sangli 416 405.

¶9

2 Shri Mahankali Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Incorporated and registered under the provision of the Maharashtra Co-

¶10

Sanap ( OA No. 624/2023 ) 1 of 7

¶11

operative Societies Act, 1960 having Regd. Office – At Post Kavathe Mahankal, Taluka Kavathe Mahankal, District Sangli - 416 405. 3 Sangli District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., Incorporated and registered under the provision of the Maharashtra Cooperative. Societies Act, 1960 having Regd. Office at – SDCC HO, Pushpraj Chowk, Sangli - 416 416. … Defendants

¶12

Appearances :- For Applicant Advocate Satyen Jagtap. For Defendants Without written statement.

¶13

Total Claim Amount – Rs.15,76,177=99

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

(Delivered on 11^th February, 2026)

¶16

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.15,76,177=99, by rounding Rs.15,77,178/- together with future interest @13.45% per annum from the date of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

¶17

Brief facts of the application are as under :-

¶18

Defendant No.1 is a borrower and defendant No. 2 is guarantor for discharging of the loan liability of defendant No.1 granted by the applicant Bank to defendant No.1.

¶19

Sanap ( OA No. 624/2023 ) 2 of 7

¶20

Defendant No.2 has created first charge by way of mortgaging the properties to defendant No.3, which are mortgaged to the applicant Bank by way of second charge. Therefore, defendant No.3 is joined in this Application as necessary party and no relief has been claimed against defendant No.3.

¶21

Defendant No. 2 carries on business of manufacturing of sugar and by-products out of sugar and avails services of Harvesting and Transport contractors in every crushing season for Harvesting and Transportation of Sugarcane from the fields of agriculturists to the Sugar Mill. Defendant No. 2 proposed to disburse loans / advances to 282 Truck / Tractors operators / bullock carts operators for crushing season 2013-14.

¶22

As per the loan application of defendant No.2, the applicant Bank sanctioned the aggregate credit/demand loan facility of Rs.2520.00 Lakhs to 282 borrowers vide Sanction Letter dated 19.08.2013.

¶23

At the instance of defendant No.2, defendant No. 1 requested the applicant Bank for demand loan facility for Harvesting / Transporting of sugarcane to defendant No.2 vide loan application dated 10.12.2013. Accordingly, the applicant Bank sanctioned demand loan of Rs.9,00,000/- to

¶24

Sanap ( OA No. 624/2023 ) 3 of 7

¶25

defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 stood guarantor for the repayment of loan availed by defendant No.1.

¶26

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank. Defendant No. 2 with the consent of defendant No.3 has created second charge on the properties Gat Nos. 1456 to 1464, 1466, 1468A, 1469 to 1472, 1474 to 1479, 1483 to 1493, 70 and 72 situated at Kavathe Mahankal, District Sangli by executing mortgage deed dated 24.01.2011, in favour of the applicant Bank.

¶27

Thereafter, considering request of defendant Nos.1 and 2, the applicant Bank restructured the said Demand Loan of Rs.9,00,000/- to Term Loan of Rs.10,95,606/- on 31.07.2015 and defendant No.1 executed supplemental Term Loan Agreement and Acknowledgment of Debts/Securities Letter dated 31.07.2015 in favour of the applicant Bank and thereby confirmed the balance outstanding in loan account.

¶28

The applicant Bank contended that the defendants committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Hence, on 31.05.2018, the applicant Bank has classified the account of defendant No.1 as Non-Performing Asset in accordance with

¶29

Sanap ( OA No. 624/2023 ) 4 of 7

¶30

guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Thereafter, on 02.07.2018, the applicant Bank issued legal Notice to defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Despite service of Notice, defendant Nos.1 and 2 failed and neglected to pay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank.

¶31

Hence, this application is filed.

¶32

The defendants failed to file written statement. Therefore, the application proceeded without written statement against the defendants as per Order dated 08.08.2025 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶33

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Shivajee Bhardwaj, Branch Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the photo copies/original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW1-1 to AW1-25 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶34

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

¶35

Since the defendants failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of the applicant Bank. Therefore, application deserves to be allowed against defendant Nos.1 and 2. No relief is claimed against defendant No.3, therefore, no order against defendant No.3.

¶36

Sanap ( OA No. 624/2023 ) 5 of 7

¶37

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @13.45% per annum. 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.

¶38

Hence, I pass the following order.

¶39

O R D E R

¶40

A} Original Application No. 624/2023 is allowed with costs against defendant Nos.1 and 2.

¶41

B} Defendant Nos.1 and 2 either jointly or severally shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.15,76,178/(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand One Hundred Seventy Eight only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 27.07.2018 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶42

C} The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage of properties Gat Nos. 1456 to 1464, 1466, 1468A, 1469 to 1472, 1474 to 1479, 1483 to 1493, 70 and 72 situated at Kavathe Mahankal, Taluka Kavathe Mahankal, District Sangli, more particularly described in the Para No. 5.11 of the Original Application, subject to first charge of defendant No.3.

¶43

Sanap ( OA No. 624/2023 ) 6 of 7

¶44

D} The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged property to recover its dues, subject to first charge of defendant No.3.

¶45

E} No order in respect of defendant No.3 as no relief has been claimed against defendant No.3.

¶46

F} Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶47

G} The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant and defendants.

¶48

Sd/( Dilip G. Murumkar ) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 11.02.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶49

Sanap ( OA No. 624/2023 ) 7 of 7

Bank of India v. Mahesh Londhe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Mahesh Londhe

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

Federal Bank versus Chetna Sagvekar

Union Bank of India versus Sidharam

Union Bank of India versus Anil

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus Allianz Poly Pack Indisutries

Bank of India versus Kondiba Jedhe

Ms Vrushali Vinod Kadam versus State Bank Of India