Allowed

Svc Co. Operative Bank Limited v. Nitin More

DRT28 Jan 2026OA/754/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application filed under the SARFAESI Act for recovery of dues, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application against defendant No.1 and ex-parte against defendants 2-4. The order recovered outstanding dues and future interest at a reduced rate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.23,07,628/- with future interest at 9% per annum; direction to sell mortgaged property; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Svc Co. Operative Bank Limited versus Nitin More — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 01.02.2021 Registered on: 17.09.2022 Decided on: 28.01.2026 Duration: Y M D 04 11 27

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.754/2022

¶3

SVC Co-operative Bank Ltd. Having Registered Office at SVC Tower, Jawaharlal Neharu Road, Vakola, Santacruz (E), Mumbai - 400 055, having its branch at Laxman Heights, CTS No.833, Sadashiv Peth, Pune-411 030.

¶4

Versus

¶5

1. Mr. Nitin Pandurang More

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

2. Mr. Sachin Pandurang More

¶8

No.1 & 2 R/at –

¶9

101, 1^st Floor, A-Building, D Wisteria Park, S.No.57/2, 57/1A/3, Village Wadgaon Budruk, Taluka Haveli, District Pune-411 041.

¶10

3. Mr. Tejas Maruti More

¶11

R/at S.No.118, Swami Vivekanand Vasahat, Sinhgad Road, Jaydev Nagar, Vitthalwadi, Pune411 030.

¶12

4. Mr. Nitin Kumar Vitthal Joshi

¶13

R/at S.No.3, Anushri Niwas, Anand Colony, DTC, Warje, Pune.

… Defendants

(OA No.754/2022)

Page 1 of 6

[ AGT ]

APPEARANCES

For the Applicant Advocate Priti Bhat For the Defendant No.1 Advocate Sheetal Nikam Defendant Nos.2 to 4 Ex-parte

¶20

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT –Rs.23,07,628/-.

¶21

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 28^th January, 2026)

¶22

This is an application for the recovery of the dues of Rs.23,07,628/as on 29.02.2020 together with future interest thereon @10.10% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of filing of the Original Application till repayment/realization against defendants.

¶23

The averments in the application can be summarized as under:

¶24

Defendant No.1 is Principal Borrower and Mortgagor, Defendant No.2 is Co-borrower and Mortgagor and Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are the Guarantors. The Defendants have availed Housing Loan of Rs.24,06,000/- from the applicant bank on 08.02.2016 for purchase of Flat No.101, First Floor, A-Building, D Wisteria Park, S.No.57/2, 57/1A/3, Village Wadgaon Budruk, Taluka Haveli, District Pune-411 041.

¶25

In order to secure the above said credit facility; the defendants have executed loan transaction and security documents on 08.03.2016 as mentioned in paragraph 5 of the Original Application.

(OA No.754/2022)

Page 2 of 6

[ AGT ]

In order to further secure the credit facility, the defendants have mortgaged following immovable property in favour of the Applicant Bank i.e. all that piece and parcel of property being Flat No.101, admeasuring 632 sq. ft. (Built up), A-Building, 1^st floor, alongwith attached terrace, in D Wisteria Park alongwith one exclusive open shed car parking admeasuring about 120 sq. ft., S.No.57/2, 57/1A/2, and 57/1A/3 village Vadgaon Budruk, Taluka Haveli, District Pune, within the registration Sub District of Taluka Haveli, District Pune and within the limits of Pune Municipal Corporation, Pune, more particularly described in Para No.6 of the Original Application.

¶30

The Defendants were irregular in repayment of its dues after April, 2018. Despite repeated requests made by the applicant to the defendants to regularize the account, defendants failed to repay the dues. Therefore, the account of defendants was classified as NonPerforming Asset on 29.02.2020. Therefore, the applicant Bank issued Notice dated 07.11.2019 under Section 13(2) of The Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short “SARFAESI Act”) to all the defendants and demanded Rs.23,07,628/- towards outstanding dues payable as on 29.02.2020 together with interest and expenses as indicated therein. Despite issuance of Demand Notice, the defendants failed to repay the dues of the applicant.

¶31

Hence, filed this application.

(OA No.754/2022)

Page 3 of 6

[ AGT ]

Defendant Nos.1 to 4 were duly served with summons. Defendant No.1 appeared and Advocate Sheetal Nikam filed Vakalatnama on his behalf, but failed to file Written Statement. Hence, No WS order is passed against Defendant No.1.

¶36

Defendant Nos.2 to 4 did not appear instead service of notice. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against them.

¶37

The applicant has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Mr. Nilesh Amdekar, Branch Manager of the applicant and has produced on record the Original Loan Transaction documents at Exhibits AW-1/1 to AW-1/7, which corroborates the case of the Applicant Bank.

¶38

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

¶39

Since the Defendant No.1 failed to file Written Statement and defendant Nos. 2 to 4 failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the applicant. Therefore, the applicant is entitled for reliefs as claimed for.

¶40

The applicant has claimed future interest @10.10% per annum. However, in my opinion, rate of interest claimed by the applicant bank is exorbitant. Having regard to the facts of the case, I am of the

(OA No.754/2022)

Page 4 of 6

[ AGT ]

opinion that if future interest is granted @9% p.a. (Simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶45

Hence, I pass the following order:-

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(A) Original Application No.754/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶48

(B) Defendant Nos.1 to 3 either jointly or severally shall pay a sum of Rs.23,07,628/- (Rupees Twenty-Three Lakhs Seven Thousand Six Hundred Twenty-Eight only) to the applicant bank towards Housing Loan Account with future interest @9% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 01.02.2021 till payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶49

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the Mortgage of the immovable property i.e. all that piece and parcel of property being Flat No.101, admeasuring 632 sq. ft. (Built up), A-Building, 1^st floor, alongwith attached terrace, in D Wisteria Park alongwith one exclusive open shed car parking admeasuring about 120 sq. ft., S.No.57/2, 57/1A/2, and 57/1A/3 village Vadgaon Budruk, Taluka Haveli, District Pune, within the registration Sub District of Taluka Haveli, District Pune and within the limits of Pune Municipal Corporation, Pune, more particularly described in Para No.6 of the Original Application.

(OA No.754/2022)

Page 5 of 6

[ AGT ]

(D) The Applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged property to recover the dues.

¶54

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶55

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

¶56

Place :– Pune Date :- 28.01.2026.

¶57

Sd/(Dilip G. Murumkar) Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶58

(OA No.754/2022)

¶59

Page 6 of 6

¶60

[ AGT ]

Svc Co. Operative Bank Limited v. Nitin More

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Svc Co. Operative Bank Limited v. Nitin More

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

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Dattatraya Hanmantrao Solaskar

Punjab National Bank versus Manisha Tilekar

State Bank of India versus Johnson

Union Bank of India versus Revappa

State Bank of India versus Shravak Associates