Allowed

Canara Bank v. Priyanka Dipak Sarode

DRT20 Feb 2026OA/94/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Canara Bank against two borrowers and a guarantor for recovery of Rs. 22,09,070/- and future interest. The court adjudicated the claim ex-parte due to the defendants' absence, validated the loan documents, directed the sale of hypothecated assets, and capped future interest at 11% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed; defendants to pay Rs. 22,09,070/- plus 11% p.a. future interest jointly and severally; sale of hypothecated machinery permitted; recovery certificate issued.

Canara Bank versus Priyanka Dipak Sarode — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 03.03.2022 Registered on: 26.04.2022 Decided on: 20.02.2026 Duration: Y M D 03 11 17

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 94/2022

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 22,09,070/-

¶4

CANARA BANK,

¶5

A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings)

¶6

Act, 1970, having its Head Office at 112 J.C. Road, Bangalore Karnataka State and one of its Branch At

¶7

Plot No. 1, Sarada Arcade, Friends Colony,

¶8

Railway Station Road, Aurangabad-01, through … Applicant its Attorney Mr. Ravikumar Krishnaiah D.

¶9

Versus

¶10

1. Priyanaka Dipak Sarode Age: 29 years, Occ.: Business, R/o.: Flat No. 3, Ramkuwar Plaza, Osmanpura, Aurangabad.

(OA No.94/2022)

Page 1 of 7

[AMBADAS]

2. Subhash Tukaram Wankhede

¶15

Age: 41 years, Occ.: Business, R/o.: Plot No. 12, ‘Aditya’, Asha Nagar, Bhavsinghpura Road, Near Ganesh Mandir, Nandanvan Colony, Aurangabad.

¶16

…Defendants

¶17

APPEARANCES

¶18

For the Applicant For Defendants

¶19

Mr. Sameer J. Pande -Advocate Ex-parte

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Delivered on 20.02.2026

¶22

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the

¶23

recovery of a sum of Rs. 22,09,070/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs, Nine Thousand, and Seventy only), along with future interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 03.03.2022, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶24

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶25

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

(OA No.94/2022)

Page 2 of 7

[AMBADAS]

Applicant Bank Sanctioned Term loan (MSME) facility of Rs. 13,50,000/- vide sanction letter dated 11.01.2021 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for the aforesaid loan was @10.20% p.a. 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. Thereafter, the defendant again approached the applicant bank for sanctioning an overdraft facility. Upon considering the needs and request of the defendant, the applicant bank sanctioned overdraft loan facility of Rs. 9,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 22.01.2021 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for the aforesaid loan was @ 9.80% p.a. 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.

(OA No.94/2022)

Page 3 of 7

[AMBADAS]

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendant executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letters, hypothecation agreement, demand promissory notes, etc. Additionally defendant No. 2 stood as guarantor for defendant No.1 and executed deed of guarantee in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶34

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendants executed hypothecation agreement thereby hypothecating assets and machinery in favor of the applicant bank.

¶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

(OA No.94/2022)

Page 4 of 7

[AMBADAS]

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. Therefore, on 12.02.2022 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.

¶40

The defendants failed to appear despite service. Hence, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 31.05.2023.

¶41

The applicant Bank has filed Evidence Affidavit at Exhibit-4 of Mr. Ravikumar Krishnaiah D., Chief Manager of the applicant Bank and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Annexure A-1 to A-22 along with list of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶42

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

(OA No.94/2022)

Page 5 of 7

[AMBADAS]

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.

¶47

The applicant Bank has claimed charge over hypothecated properties of the borrowers.

¶48

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @15% p. a. from the date of filing i.e. 03.03.2022 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 @ 11% per annum (simple), it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(A) Original Application No. 94/2022 is allowed with costs.

¶51

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 22,09,070/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs, Nine Thousand, and Seventy only), along with future interest @ 11% per annum (simple) from the

(OA No.94/2022)

Page 6 of 7

[AMBADAS]

date of filing of the O.A. i.e. 03.03.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this

¶56

operative order.

¶57

(C) The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the hypothecation of assets and machinery vide document at Annexure A-7 in list of documents Exh. 5.

¶58

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

¶59

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶60

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

¶61

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

Pronounced in open court. Place: Aurangabad Date:.20.02.2026

¶64

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

¶65

(OA No.94/2022)

¶66

Page 7 of 7

¶67

[AMBADAS]

Canara Bank v. Priyanka Dipak Sarode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Priyanka Dipak Sarode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Ms M.S. Industries

Idbi Bank Limited versus M/S D. Navalchand and Company

Malhar Petroleum versus Shankar Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd.

Idbi Bank versus Mina W/o Satyaprem Mehta

Canara Bank versus M/S Arth Construction

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Smk Global Security Solutions Pvt. Ltd.