Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr. Ravindra Babulal Jain

DRT9 Jan 2026OA/882/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an ex parte application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 57,83,573.69 unpaid on a Top-Up Home Loan sanctioned to respondents in 2016, and granted secured interest at 8%. The decision relied on unrebutted bank evidence.

What did the court decide?

Decreed Rs. 57,83,573.69 plus future interest at 8% p.a. simple; secured by mortgaged property; Recovery Certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Ravindra Babulal Jain — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 30.10.2024 Registered on: 19.11.2024 Decided on: 09.01.2026 Duration: Y M D 01 02 09

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 882/2024

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 57,83,573.69/-

¶4

State Bank of India,

¶5

A body corporate constituted under the provisions of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955) having it’s one of Local Head office at Synergy, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai, & Branches amongst the other places at RACPC, Aurangabad & having Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB) at Plot No. 79, N-5, CIDCO Aurangabad- 431003 through its Authorized Officer, Mr. Nitin Narayan Kamble (Manager & CCO), Age: 42 yrs., Occ.: Service, R/o. CIDCO, Aurangabad.

¶6

Versus

¶7

… Applicant

¶8

1. Mr. Ravindra Babulal Jain, Age: Major, Occ.: Business, R/o.: At G-3, Vardhaman Residency, Khiwansara Park, Garkheda, Chh. Sambhajinagar 431009.

¶9

2. Mrs. Mohini Ravindra Jain,

¶10

Age: Major, Occ.: Business, R/o.: At G-3, Vardhaman Residency,

(OA No.882/2024)

Page 1 of 7

[AMBADAS]

Khiwansara Park, Garkheda, Chh. Sambhajinagar 431009.

¶15

…Defendants.

¶16

APPEARANCES

¶17

For the Applicant For Defendants

¶18

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

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Delivered on 09.01.2026

¶21

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 57,83,573.69/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Lacs, Eighty Three Thousand, Five Hundred Seventy Three and Sixty Nine Paisa only), along with further interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 30.10.2024, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶22

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶23

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendant No. 1 & 2 had approached and requested the Applicant Bank for Top-Up Home Loan Facility. Upon considering the request and financial needs of the Defendants, the Applicant Bank sanctioned Top-Up Home

¶24

Loan Facility of Rs. 78,70,000/- , vide arrangement letter dated

(OA No.882/2024)

Page 2 of 7

[AMBADAS]

04.05.2016 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of

¶29

interest for aforesaid loan facility was @ 9.55% per annum with monthly rests. The Defendants also agreed to pay additional interest @2% by way of liquidated damages in the event of any default in repayment.

¶30

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendants executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included arrangement letter, Home top up loan, letter of undertaking, equitable mortgage deed dated 04.05.2016 and housing loan agreement etc.

¶31

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendants created first charge over immovable property by executing equitable mortgage deed dated 04.05.2016 in favour of the Applicant Bank. The mortgage was created in respect of the following property:

¶32

All that piece and parcel of Row House No. 03 admeasuring 1352 sq. ft. in G Type Building, Vardhaman Residency, CTS No. 15735/6, Khiwansara Park, Garkheda, Chh. Sambhajinagar, which is bounded as under:

(OA No.882/2024)

Page 3 of 7

[AMBADAS]

East: Road West: Side Margin South: Row House No. 4 North: Row House No. 2.

¶37

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 08.08.2024. Therefore, on 21.10.2024 the applicant bank issued legal Notice to the defendants. The defendants failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

(OA No.882/2024)

Page 4 of 7

[AMBADAS]

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were duly served. Hence, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 03.02.2025.

¶42

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Mr. Nitin Narayan Kamble, CCO of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Exh. A-1 to A-13 along with list of documentsExh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶43

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

¶44

Since the defendants failed to appear and to file the written statement 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.

¶45

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

(OA No.882/2024)

Page 5 of 7

[AMBADAS]

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest at @9.45% with monthly rats from the date of filing i.e. 30.10.2024 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.

¶50

ORDER

¶51

(A) Original Application No. 882/2024 is allowed with costs.

¶52

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 57,83,573.69/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Lacs, Eighty Three Thousand, Five Hundred Seventy Three and Sixty Nine Paisa only), along with future interest @ 8% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 30.10.2024 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶53

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the mortgage of the following immovable property vide documents at Exh A-6 to A-10 in list of documents Exh. 5.

(OA No.882/2024)

Page 6 of 7

[AMBADAS]

East: Road West: Side Margin South: Row House No. 4 North: Row House No. 2.

¶59

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

¶60

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶61

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

¶62

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

Pronounced in open court. Place: Aurangabad Date:.09.01.2026

¶65

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

¶66

(OA No.882/2024)

¶67

Page 7 of 7

¶68

[AMBADAS]

State Bank of India v. Mr. Ravindra Babulal Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr. Ravindra Babulal Jain

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

Hdfc Bank versus Rasul Gulab Shaikh

Union Bank of India versus Rajendra Trymbak Patil

Icici Bank Limited versus Bapu Sukhdeo Pawar

Idbi Bank versus Mr. Yogesh Rohidas Mali

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Javed Kayyum Sawdagar

State Bank of India versus M/S Jagdamba Steel