Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr. Arvind Kailas Salunke

DRT13 Apr 2026OA/704/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of a housing loan amount of Rs. 23,46,337/- and future interest against the Defendant who failed to appear and contest the claim ex-parte.

What did the court decide?

The Defendant shall pay Rs. 23,46,337/- with future interest @ 8% p.a.; the aforesaid amount is recoverable out of the mortgaged immovable property.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Arvind Kailas Salunke — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 13.08.2024 Registered on: 10.09.2024 Decided on: 13.04.2026 Duration: Y M D 01 08 00

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 704/2024

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 23,46,337/-

¶4

State Bank of India, A body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India, Act, 1955 having its Local Head Office at Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai, one of its office at Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB), at CIDCO, Aurangabad and acting through it’s one of principal officer i.e. Dy. Manager, Shri. Shivaji Vitthalrao Daud, Age: 55 Yrs., Occ.: Service as CCO State Bank of India, SARB Aurangabad-431003.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Arvind Kailas Salunke Age: Major, Occ. Business, R/o. House No. 2, Krushna Mandir Road, Post Golatgav, Aurangabad. AND R/o. Row House No. 2, Sainath Villa, Plot No. 1 to 36, Gut No. 46, Mauje Sunderwadi, Aurangabad 431007.

…Defendant

(OA No.704/2024)

Page 1 of 8

[AMBADAS]

APPEARANCES

For the Applicant For Defendant

¶14

Mr. Sachin S. Katariya Advocate Ex-parte

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Delivered on 13.04.2026

¶17

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 23,46,337/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs, Forty Six Thousand, Three Hundred and Thirty Seven only), along with further interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 13.08.2024, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendant.

¶18

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶19

The applicant bank states that, the Defendant had approached the Applicant Bank requesting sanction of Housing Loan Facility. After due consideration, the Bank sanctioned i) Home Loan under Home Loan HL for individual Segment of Rs. 22,00,000/- ii) Funding of Home Loan Insurance cover of Rs. 70,000/- vide arrangement Letter dated 14.09.2022, subject to certain terms

(OA No.704/2024)

Page 2 of 8

[AMBADAS]

and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for the said facility was

¶24

@8.45% per annum with monthly rests. Additionally, the Defendant agreed to pay further interest at the rate of 2% per annum by way of liquidated damages in the event of default in repayment.

¶25

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendant executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included arrangement letter, housing loan agreement, registered mortgage deed dated 13.01.2023 etc., in favor of the applicant bank.

¶26

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility sanctioned to him, the Defendant created first charge over his immovable property by executing registered mortgage deed dated 13.01.2023, in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶27

The mortgage was created in respect of the following property –

¶28

All that piece and parcel of Row House No. 02, Sainath Villa, Plot No. 1 to 36, Gat No. 46, Mauje Sundarwadi, Aurangabad,

(OA No.704/2024)

Page 3 of 8

[AMBADAS]

admeasuring built up area 83.64 Sq. Meters, which is bounded as under:

¶33

East: 6 Meter wide road, West: Gat No. 46, South: Row House No. 01, North: Row House No. 03.

¶34

The applicant bank contended that the defendant has failed to keep his promise and commitments agreed by him with regard to due repayment of the loan amount. The defendant 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 defendant to pay with the agreed rate of interest thereon, but the defendant failed and neglected to pay the same. The loan account of the defendant became irregular and classified as NPA on 14.04.2024. Therefore, on 05.07.2024 the applicant bank issued legal Notice to the defendant. The defendant failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

(OA No.704/2024)

Page 4 of 8

[AMBADAS]

The defendant failed to appear in matter though he was served through RPAD. Hence, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 13.02.2025.

¶39

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Mr. Shivaji Vitthalrao Daud, City Case Officer of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Exh. A-1 to A-18 as per list of documents Exh. 5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶40

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

¶41

Since the defendant 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.

(OA No.704/2024)

Page 5 of 8

[AMBADAS]

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

¶46

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @9.55% with monthly rests from the date of filing i.e. 13.08.2024 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 @ 8% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶47

ORDER

¶48

(A) Original Application No. 704/2024 is allowed with costs.

¶49

(B) The defendant shall pay to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 23,46,337/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs, Forty Six Thousand, Three Hundred and Thirty Seven only), along with future interest @ 8% per annum (simple), from the date of filing of the O.A. i.e. 13.08.2024 till full

(OA No.704/2024)

Page 6 of 8

[AMBADAS]

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

¶54

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the mortgaged of the following immovable property vide document at Exh. A-6 and A-7 in list of documents Exh. 5.

¶55

All that piece and parcel of Row House No. 02, Sainath Villa, Plot No. 1 to 36, Gat No. 46, Mauje Sundarwadi, Aurangabad, admeasuring built up area 83.64 Sq. Meters, which is bounded as under:

¶56

East: 6 Meter wide road, West: Gat No. 46, South: Row House No. 01, North: Row House No. 03.

¶57

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

¶58

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

(OA No.704/2024)

Page 7 of 8

[AMBADAS]

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

¶63

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

Pronounced in open court. Place: Aurangabad Date:.13.04.2026

¶66

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

¶67

(OA No.704/2024)

¶68

Page 8 of 8

¶69

[AMBADAS]

State Bank of India v. Mr. Arvind Kailas Salunke

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr. Arvind Kailas Salunke

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

Mrs Sangita Prakash Pawar versus Bank of Maharashtra

Ramesh Dyanoba Wadekar versus Canara Bank

Idbi Bank versus Mr. Ganesh Narayan Jadhav

Canara Bank versus Dadarao Mahipat Wahatule

Shamit Educational Trust versus The Malkapur Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd.

Bank of India versus M/S Libertypaint Coating India Pvt. Ltd.