Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Anil Ganpat Chavan

DRT4 Feb 2026OA/644/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an ex-parte application by Bank of Maharashtra for recovery of dues. The court adjusted penalty interest and reduced future interest rate to 9%, directing respondents to pay a reduced principal sum with simple interest.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs.24,69,943/- adjusted of penalty with future interest @9% p.a. secured by mortgage; Relief Certificate issued.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Anil Ganpat Chavan — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 03.05.2022 Registered on: 19.04.2023 Decided on: 04.02.2026 Duration: Y M D

¶2

03 09 01

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE

¶4

(Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.644/2023.

¶5

Bank of Maharashtra ,

¶6

A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisitions & Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 having its Head Office at “Lokmangal” 1501, Shivajinagar, Pune-5 and Branch amongst other places at Rajapur Branch, Phadake Building, Bazar Peth, Rajapur, Taluka Rajapur, District Ratnagiri-416 702.

¶7

… Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. Mr. Anil Ganpat Chavan R/at- 251, Bhatall (Chavan Wadi)

¶10

Tal. Rajapur, District Ratnagiri-416 702.

¶11

2 . Mr. Javid Ismail Kalasekar R/at- 1204, Kondetad (Talimkhana)

¶12

Tal. Rajapur, District Ratnagiri-416 702.

¶13

3 . Mr. Nandkishor Jayram Chavan All R/at- 1204, Chavanwadi, Tal. Rajapur, District Ratnagiri-416 702.

¶14

Mr. Gafoor Yusuf Mulla R/at 347, Mulla Wada, Nandivali, Tal. Rajapur, District Ratnagiri-416 702.

¶15

… Defendants

¶16

APPEARANCES

¶17

For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶18

Mr. R. B. Ganbote - Advocate Ex-parte.

(OA No.644/2023)

Page 1 of 7

[ANIL]

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs.25,17,208/-.

¶23

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 4^th February, 2026)

¶24

1 The Applicant Bank has filed present application for recovery of sum of Rs.25,17,208/[i.e.Rs.9,81,801/towards Term Loan & Rs.15,35,407/- towards MKCC Loan] together with future interest thereon at the rate of @12% p.a. with monthly rests from Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and @14.25%p.a. with half yearly rests from Defendant Nos.1,3 & 4 respectively from the date of filing this application till actual realization of amount.

¶25

2 Brief facts of the application are as under:Defendant Nos.1 to 3 approached the applicant bank and requested for a Term Loan of Rs.6,00,000/- for the purpose of construction of farm house. Defendant No.2 and 3 offered themselves as Guarantors for securing the Term Loan to be availed by Defendant No.1.

¶26

The applicant bank considered the request of the defendants and thereby sanctioned Term Loan of Rs.6,00,000/- on 26.09.2013 to Defendant No.1 for construction of Farm House on certain terms and conditions.

¶27

In order to secure the aforesaid Loan facilities, the defendants have executed certain loan documents on 26.09.2013 in favour of the Applicant Bank, as mentioned in Para Nos.5.5 of the Original Application.

(OA No.644/2023)

Page 2 of 7

[ANIL]

Defendant No.1 also executed E-Karar (Declarative Mortgage) on 23.09.2013 of the properties under the provisions of Maharashtra Provision of Facilities for Agricultural Credit by Banks Act, 1974, as per Section 5(1) of the said Act and charged the properties i.e. - all that piece and parcel of Agricultural Land in Gat No.262 Hissa No.10 admeasuring area 03H 65R + P.K. 01H 65R, at village Dhopeshwar, Taluka Rajapur, within the limits of Registration District Ratnagiri Sub District District more Registration Rajapur, Ratnagiri, particularly described in Para No.5.7 of the Original Application.

¶32

3 Defendant Nos.1, 3 & 4 again approached the applicant bank and requested for MKCC of Rs.11,00,000/- for the purpose of Mahabank Kissan Credit Card (MKCC). Defendant Nos.3 and 4 offered themselves as Guarantors for the MKCC availed by Defendant No.1 from the applicant bank.

¶33

Applicant bank considered the request of the defendants and sanctioned MKCC Limit up to Rs.11,00,000/- on 13.02.2014, on certain terms and conditions.

¶34

In order to secure the aforesaid Loan facilities, the defendants have executed certain loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank, as mentioned in Para Nos.5.13 of the Original Application.

¶35

Defendant No.1 also executed E-Karar (Declarative Mortgage) on 04.02.2014 of the properties under the provisions of Maharashtra Provision of Facilities for Agricultural Credit by Banks Act, 1974, as per Section 5(1) of the said Act and charged the properties i.e. - all that piece and parcel of Agricultural Land in Gat No.262 Hissa No.10 admeasuring 05H 30R at village Dhopeshwar, Taluka Rajapur, within

(OA No.644/2023)

Page 3 of 7

[ANIL]

the limits of Registration District Ratnagiri, Sub Registration District Rajapur, District Ratnagiri, more particularly described in Para No.5.15 of the Original Application.

¶40

4 Applicant Bank contended that after availing Term Loan Facility and MKCC Loan facility, the defendants failed and neglected to pay outstanding amount and comply with the terms and conditions in which the said facilities were granted to them. Defendant No.1 has failed to pay the installments in Term Loan account and also failed to pay interest in MKCC and committed breach of the sanction terms and hence, account of Defendant No.1 with the applicant bank has become NPA, as per Reserve Bank of India norms.

¶41

Therefore, the applicant bank issued Recall Notice dated 21.10.2021 to all the defendants. However, in spite of sending and receipt of the notices, the defendants failed to pay the amount of their credit facilities and ignored his responsibility to pay the dues.

¶42

Hence, this application is filed.

¶43

5 Defendant Nos.1 to 4 have failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against them vide Order dated 23.06.2025 passed below the Application (Exh.-01).

¶44

6 The Applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of Mr. Gaurav Yashwant Deshpande, Senior Manager & produced on record the Loan Transaction documents (Exh.07) at Exhibits.AW-1 to AW-21, which corroborates the case of the Applicant Bank.

¶45

7 I have heard arguments of the learned Advocate for the Applicant Bank.

(OA No.644/2023)

Page 4 of 7

[ANIL]

8 Since the defendants failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Applicant Bank. Therefore, the Applicant Bank is entitled for reliefs as claimed.

¶50

9 The Applicant Bank has claimed relief in respect of hypothecated assets, however, there is no detailed description with respect to hypothecated vehicle/assets. Therefore, the relief in terms of hypothecated vehicle/ assets cannot be granted.

¶51

10 The Applicant Bank has claimed arrears of Penalty interest of Rs.12,516/- for Term Loan A/c and Rs.34,749/- for MKCC Account (Total Rs.47,265/-) and the same are required to be deducted from the total claim amount. Therefore, the total claim amount of Rs.25,17,208/- is reduced to Rs.24,69,943 /- .

¶52

11 The Applicant Bank has claimed future interest @12.00% p.a . for the Term loan facility & @14.25 p.a. for MKCC Loan Facility. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% p.a. (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶53

Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶54

(A) Original Application No.644/2023 is allowed with costs.

¶55

(B) Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 either jointly or severally shall pay an aggregate sum of Rs.24,69,943 / - (Rupees Twenty-Four Lakhs Sixty-Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Fourty Three only) to the applicant bank as under –

(OA No.644/2023)

Page 5 of 7

[ANIL]

(i) – Out of Rs.24,69,943/-, Defendant Nos.1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay Rs.9,69,285 /- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Sixty-Nine Thousand Two Hundred Eighty-Five only) towards Term Loan Account with future interest @ 9% p.a. (Simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 03.05.2022 till payment /realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶60

(ii)- Out of Rs.24,69,943/- Defendant Nos.1, 3 & 4 either jointly or severally shall pay Rs.15,00,658 /- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Six Hundred Fifty-Eight only) towards MKCC Account with future interest @ 9% p.a. (Simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 03.05.2022 till payment /realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶61

(C)

¶62

The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by creating Mortgage regarding immovable properties i.e.

¶63

(i)- All that piece and parcel of Agricultural Land in Gat No.262 Hissa No.10 admeasuring area 03H 65R + P.K. 01H 65R at village Dhopeshwar, Taluka Rajapur, within the limits of Registration District Ratnagiri Sub Registration District Rajapur, District Ratnagiri, more particularly described in Para No.5.7 of the Original Application.

¶64

(ii)- All that piece and parcel of Agricultural Land in Gat No.262 Hissa No.10 admeasuring 05H 30R at village Dhopeshwar, Taluka Rajapur, within the limits of Registration District Ratnagiri, Sub Registration District Rajapur, District Ratnagiri, more particularly described in Para No.5.15 of the Original Application.

(OA No.644/2023)

Page 6 of 7

[ANIL]

(D) The Applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged immovable properties to recover its dues.

¶69

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶70

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

¶71

Sd/(Dilip G. Murumkar) Place : Pune Presiding Officer, Date: 04.02.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶72

(OA No.644/2023)

¶73

Page 7 of 7

¶74

[ANIL]

Bank of Maharashtra v. Anil Ganpat Chavan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Anil Ganpat Chavan

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

Union Bank of India versus Suryakant

Canara Bank versus Nitin

State Bank of India versus Dhananjay Solaskar

Union Bank of India versus Sujit Prabhakar More

State Bank of India versus Mrs Tejashri Alias Tejaswini Vikram Borate

Union Bank of India versus Bhaskar