Allowed

Bank of India v. Narayan Ramu Matore

DRT13 Aug 2026OA/697/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bank of India filed an application for recovery of loan dues of Rs. 26,20,687 from borrowers who defaulted on a term loan. The defendants were absent. The Tribunal allowed the application, directed payment of principal and future interest at 7% p.a., and granted authority to sell mortgaged property to recover dues.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 26,20,687 with future interest @ 7% p.a.; applicant entitled to sell mortgaged property; recovery certificate issued.

Bank of India versus Narayan Ramu Matore — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 12.11.2025 Registered on: 25.11.2025 Decided on: 12.08.2026 Duration: Y M D 00 09 00

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 697/2025

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 26,20,687/-

¶4

Bank of India, A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Head office at Star House, C-5, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai & having branches amongst the other places at Loha Dist. Nanded, through its authorized person, Mr. Annarao Sitaram Rathod (Branch Manager), Age: 34 yrs., Occ.: Service, R/o.: Loha Dist. Nanded.

¶5

Versus

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

1. Mr. Narayan Ramu Matore, Age: Major, Occ.: Agri., R/o.: At Post Dhanora Makta, Tq. Loha, Dist. Nanded 431708.

¶8

2. Mr. Narayan Babarao Matore,

¶9

Age: Major, Occ.: Agri., R/o.: At Post Dhanora Makta, Tq. Loha, Dist. Nanded 431708.

(OA No.697/2025)

Page 1 of 7

[AMBADAS]

…Defendants

APPEARANCES

For the Applicant For Defendants

¶16

Mr. K. D. Pande -Advocate Ex-parte

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Delivered on 12.08.2026

¶19

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 26,20,687/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs, Twenty Thousand, Six Hundred and Eighty Seven only), along with future interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 12.11.2025, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶20

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶21

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendant No. 1 approached and requested the Applicant Bank seeking financial assistance. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the Defendant, the Applicant Bank sanctioned Term loan facility of Rs.

¶22

20,65,000/- vide sanction letter dated 31.03.2022 on certain

(OA No.697/2025)

Page 2 of 7

[AMBADAS]

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

¶27

loan was @9.80% p.a. with half yearly rests. The Defendant also agreed to pay additional interest @2% by way of liquidated damages in the event of any default in repayment.

¶28

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendant executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letter, registered mortgage deed bearing daybook no. 1077 dated 31.03.2022, letter of undertaking, demand promissory note, letter of continuity & hypothecation agreement. Etc., Additionally defendant No. 2 stood as guarantor for defendant No. 1 and executed deed of guarantee dated 31.03.2022 in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶29

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendant No. 1 & 2 created first charge over their immovable property by executing registered mortgage deed bearing daybook no. 1077 dated 31.03.2022 in favour of the Applicant Bank. The mortgage was created in respect of the following property-

(OA No.697/2025)

Page 3 of 7

[AMBADAS]

All that piece and parcel of agriculture land, admeasuring 1 H 87 R, out of Gat No. 466, situated at Village Dhanora M., Tq. Loha Dist. Nanded, which is bounded as under:

¶34

East: Gat No. 465, West: Gat No. 467, South: Village Chitali Shiv, North: Gat No. 468, 465.

¶35

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 14.01.2025. Therefore, on 25.09.2025 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.

(OA No.697/2025)

Page 4 of 7

[AMBADAS]

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were served through RPAD. Hence, the defendants were proceeded exparte as per Order dated 27.04.2026.

¶40

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Mr. Annarao Sitaram Rathod, Branch Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Exh. A-1 to A-10 along with list of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶41

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

¶42

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.697/2025)

Page 5 of 7

[AMBADAS]

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

¶47

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @9.80% p. a. from the date of filing i.e. 12.11.2025 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 @ 7% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(A) Original Application No. 697/2025 is allowed with costs.

¶50

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 26,20,687/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs, Twenty Thousand, Six Hundred and Eighty Seven only), along with future interest @ 7% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 12.11.2025 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

(OA No.697/2025)

Page 6 of 7

[AMBADAS]

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the mortgage of the following immovable property vide documents at Exh. A-5 in list of documents Exhibit 5.

¶55

All that piece and parcel of agriculture land, admeasuring 1 H 87 R, out of Gat No. 466, situated at Village Dhanora M., Tq. Loha Dist. Nanded, which is bounded as under:

¶56

East: Gat No. 465, West: Gat No. 467, South: Village Chitali Shiv, North: Gat No. 468, 465.

¶57

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

¶58

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶59

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

¶60

(G)

¶61

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

Pronounced in open court. Place: Aurangabad Date:.12.08.2026

¶64

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

¶65

(OA No.697/2025)

¶66

Page 7 of 7

¶67

[AMBADAS]

Bank of India v. Narayan Ramu Matore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Narayan Ramu Matore

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 Jayaram Lahanu Hase

State Bank of India versus Anand Sahebrao Kakde

Hdfc Bank versus Sumedh Ashokrao Gaikwad

State Bank of India versus Ankush Sudam Jadhav

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S Bahujan Hitay Magasvargiya Auyodik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit

Bank of India versus Rajendra Kisan Berad