Allowed

Bank of India v. Ms Dwarka Frame Makers

DRT6 Aug 2026OA/634/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a recovery application filed by Bank of India against borrowers and a guarantor, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad, allowed the claim for Rs. 30,36,763.94 along with future interest at 9% per annum. The court upheld the charge on hypothecated properties and ordered the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 30,36,763.94 and future interest at 9% per annum; sale of hypothecated assets; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Bank of India versus Ms Dwarka Frame Makers — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 12.09.2025 Registered on: 24.10.2025 Decided on: 06.08.2026 Duration: Y M D 00 10 24

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 634/2025

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 30,36,763.94/-

¶4

Bank of India, A Body Corporate constituted under the 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 Shirdi, Tal. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar, through its Power of Attorney, Mr. Vivek Kumar (Chief Manager) Age: 45 yrs., Occ.: Service, R/o.: Deolali, Cantt. Nashik.

¶5

Versus

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

1. M/s. Dwarka Frame Makers, Through its Prop. Mr. Indrabhan Namdev Revgade, Age: Major, Occ.: Business, R/o.: At Post Sakuri, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar 423109.

(OA No.634/2025)

Page 1 of 8

[AMBADAS]

2. Mr. Indrabhan Namdev Revgade, Age: Major, Occ.: Business, R/o.: At Post Sakuri, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar 423109.

¶12

3. Mr. Kunal Gorakshanath Bavake, Age: Major, Occ.: Business, R/o.: At Post Sakuri, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar 423109.

¶13

APPEARANCES

¶14

…Defendants

¶15

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

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Delivered on 06.08.2026

¶18

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 30,36,763.94/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs, Thirty Six Thousand, Seven Hundred Sixty Three and Ninety Four Paisa only), along with further interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 12.09.2025, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶19

Brief facts of the application are as under:

(OA No.634/2025)

Page 2 of 8

[AMBADAS]

That, the defendant No. 2 being proprietor of defendant No. 1 had approached to the Applicant bank and requested to sanction Cash Credit Facility. Upon considering the request and need of the defendants, the Applicant Bank Sanctioned Cash Credit Facility of Rs. 6,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 11.12.2014 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest was @ 12.20% p.a. with monthly rests. The defendants also agreed to pay an additional interest by way of liquidated damages @ 2% p.a. in case of default in repayment.

¶24

That, thereafter the defendant No. 2 being proprietor of defendant No. 1 had approached to the Applicant bank and requested to enhance the Cash Credit Facility. Upon considering the request and need of the defendants, the Applicant Bank enhanced the Cash Credit Facility to Rs. 10,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 05.05.2015 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest was @ 11.95% p.a. with monthly rests. The

(OA No.634/2025)

Page 3 of 8

[AMBADAS]

defendants also agreed to pay an additional interest by way of liquidated damages @ 2% p.a. in case of default in repayment.

¶29

That, thereafter the defendant No. 2 being proprietor of defendant No. 1 again approached to the Applicant bank and requested to enhance the Cash Credit Facility. Upon considering the request and need of the defendants, the Applicant Bank enhanced the Cash Credit Facility to Rs. 15,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 18.04.2016 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest was @ 11.70% p.a. with monthly rests. The defendants also agreed to pay an additional interest by way of liquidated damages @ 2% p.a. in case of default in repayment.

¶30

¶31

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendants executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank, including the sanction letters, hypothecation agreement, and demand promissory note. Additionally Defendant No. 3 stood as

(OA No.634/2025)

Page 4 of 8

[AMBADAS]

guarantor for Defendant No.1 & 2 and executed a Deed of Guarantee in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶36

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the Loan sanctioned to them, the Defendants executed hypothecation agreement thereby hypothecating stock of Photo Cameras, Photo Frames and all other movables etc.

¶37

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 irregular and classified as NPA on 31.03.2018. Therefore on 22.08.2025 the applicant bank issued legal notice to the

(OA No.634/2025)

Page 5 of 8

[AMBADAS]

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.

¶42

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were served through RPAD. Hence, the defendants were proceeded exparte as per Order dated 23.04.2026.

¶43

¶44

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-25 as per list of documents Exh.05 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶45

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

¶46

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.

(OA No.634/2025)

Page 6 of 8

[AMBADAS]

The applicant Bank has claimed charge over hypothecated properties.

¶51

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @12.20% per annum on loan from the date of filing i.e. 12.09.2025 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 @ 9% per annum (simple) on outstanding amount, it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(A) Original Application No. 634/2025 is allowed with costs.

¶54

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 30,36,763.94/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs, Thirty Six Thousand, Seven Hundred Sixty Three and Ninety Four Paisa only), along with future interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 12.09.2025 till full

(OA No.634/2025)

Page 7 of 8

[AMBADAS]

payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶59

¶60

hypothecation of stock of Photo Cameras, Photo Frames and all other movables etc. vide documents at Exh. A-4,

¶61

A-10 and A-16 in list of documents Exh. 5.

¶62

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the hypothecated

¶63

assets/ articles/goods etc., to recover its dues.

¶64

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶65

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

¶66

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶67

Sd/-

¶68

Pronounced in open court. Place: Aurangabad Date:.06.08.2026

¶69

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

¶70

(OA No.634/2025)

¶71

Page 8 of 8

¶72

[AMBADAS]

Bank of India v. Ms Dwarka Frame Makers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Ms Dwarka Frame Makers

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

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Sanjay Anantrao Lokhande

Hdfc Bank versus Vijaykumar Ashok Patil

Icici Bank Limited versus Baban Bhujaba Keskar

Uco Bank versus Sanjay Vitthal Baviskar

Bank of India versus Ramsingh Tulsiram Rathod

Hdfc Bank versus Manzoor Badiulla Beg