Allowed

Central Bank of India v. Gayatri Prakash Khare

DRT27 Jan 2026OA/707/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of Rs. 21.22 lakhs. The Tribunal awarded the principal with simple future interest at 9% p.a. and granted rights to sell the mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 21,22,567 along with future interest at 9% p.a. simple; liberty to sell mortgaged property; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Central Bank of India versus Gayatri Prakash Khare — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 04.07.2024 Registered on: 09.09.2024 Decided on: 27.01.2026 Duration: Y M D 01 06 23

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 707/2024

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 21,22,567/-

¶4

Central Bank of India,

¶5

A body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act V, 1970 having its Central Office at “Chander Mukhi” Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021, and amongst other places having a one of its Branch at Kopargaon, City Survey No. 1708, P.B. No. 46 Borwake Building, Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar and acting through one of its authorized officer, Mr. Shyam Rajaram Dalimkar, age: 37 years, Occupation: Service as Senior Manager, Central Bank of India Kopargaon Branch, Kopargaon District Ahmednagar and having authority to file the application which includes the authority to sign and verify the application.

… Applicant

(OA No.707/2024)

Page 1 of 9

[AMBADAS]

Versus

1. Gayatri Prakash Khare, Age: 51 Years, Occupation: Housewife, Flat No. 1, Shree Complex, Plot No. 1A, Gokul Nagari Corner Sahyadri Colony, Gut No. 203/80, Kopergaon, District Ahmednagar 423 601. And Village Tigaon, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar.

¶12

2. Prakash Manohar Khare,

¶13

Age: 57 Years, Occupation: Service, Flat No. 1, Shree Complex, Plot No. 1A, Gokul Nagari Corner Sahyadri Colony, Gut No. 203/80, Kopergaon, District Ahmednagar 423 601. And Village Tigaon, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar.

¶14

3. Dhondiram Madhav Dahe,

¶15

Age: 68 Years, Occupation: Agriculture, Near Hanuman Mandir, Dauch Bk, Kopergaon, District Ahmednagar 423 601.

¶16

…Defendants

¶17

APPEARANCES

¶18

For the Applicant Mrs. Rajashree R. Yewale - Advocate For Defendants Ex-parte

(OA No.707/2024)

Page 2 of 9

[AMBADAS]

JUDGMENT

Delivered on 27.01.2026

¶24

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the

¶25

recovery of a sum of Rs. 21,22,567/- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs, Twenty Two Thousand, Five Hundred and Sixty Seven only), along with future interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 04.07.2024, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶26

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶27

The Applicant Bank states that Defendant No. 1 & 2 approached and requested the Applicant Bank for a Term Loan Facility. Considering the request and financial requirements of the Defendants, the Applicant Bank sanctioned the Term Loan Facility (Mortgage Loan) of Rs. 20,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 29.10.2018 on certain terms and conditions . The agreed rate of interest for the said facility was 11.10% per annum, with monthly rests. The Defendants further agreed to pay additional

(OA No.707/2024)

Page 3 of 9

[AMBADAS]

interest @ 2% per annum by way of liquidated damages in the event of default in repayment.

¶32

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendant No. 1 & 2 executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letter, registered mortgage deed bearing document no. KPR-3923-2018 dated 30.10.2015, supplementary agreement etc. Additionally defendant No. 3 stood as guarantor for defendant No. 1 & 2 and executed deed of guarantee on 02.11.2018 in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶33

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the Term loan facility sanctioned, the Defendant No. 1 & 2 executed mortgage deed bearing document no. KPR-3923-2018 dated 30.10.2015. The mortgage was created in respect of the following property:

¶34

All that piece and parcel of Flat No. 1 A admeasuring 74.34 sq. meters, Ground Floor, in Shree Complex, constructed on Plot No. 1A, admeasuring 207.19 sq. meters, total plot area out of which owners share 103.595 sq. meters, Gokulnagari Corner, Sahyadri

(OA No.707/2024)

Page 4 of 9

[AMBADAS]

Colony, Gut No. 203/80, situated at Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar, which is bounded as under:

¶39

East: Gala Milkat, South: Road, West: Plot No. 02, North: Plot No. 1B.

¶40

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 29.01.2022. Therefore, on 30.05.2024 the applicant bank issued demand notice to the defendants through their advocate. Despite service of Notice, the defendants failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

(OA No.707/2024)

Page 5 of 9

[AMBADAS]

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were served through summons. Hence, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 20.03.2025.

¶45

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-04 of Shyam Rajaram Dalimkar, Senior Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Annexure A-1 to A-9 as per list of documents Exh. 5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶46

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

¶47

Since the defendants 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.707/2024)

Page 6 of 9

[AMBADAS]

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

¶52

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @11.10% p.a. from the date of filing i.e. 04.07.2024 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 @ 9% p.a. (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶53

ORDER

¶54

(A) Original Application No. 707/2024 is allowed with costs.

¶55

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 21,22,567/- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs, Twenty Two Thousand, Five Hundred and Sixty Seven only), along with future interest @ 9% p.a. (simple), from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 04.07.2024 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

(OA No.707/2024)

Page 7 of 9

[AMBADAS]

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

¶60

¶61

East: Gala Milkat, South: Road, West: Plot No. 02, North: Plot No. 1B.

¶62

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

(OA No.707/2024)

Page 8 of 9

[AMBADAS]

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶67

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

¶68

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶69

Sd/-

¶70

Pronounced in open court. (Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Place: Aurangabad Presiding Officer Date:.27.01.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶71

(OA No.707/2024)

¶72

Page 9 of 9

¶73

[AMBADAS]

Central Bank of India v. Gayatri Prakash Khare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Bank of India v. Gayatri Prakash Khare

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

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Tuljabhavani Transport

Sangita Manish Bhandari versus State Bank of India

Punjab National Bank versus Ujwala Sanjay Galande

Canara Bank versus Rahul Prakash Surdakar

Canara Bank versus Ramrao Kaniram Pawar (Died)

Bank of India versus Mr. Bapusaheb Khanderao Ghorpade